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

November 16, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

PURCHASE OF WINE BY CREDIT CARDS

PURCHASE OF WINE BY CREDIT CARDS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RENAL DIALYSIS

MARY ANN BRETT

UNIVERSITY FINANCING

DRUG ABUSE

VANIER CUP

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

OXFORD ENERGY CO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RACE RELATIONS AND POLICING

COMMUNITY ACTION AWARDS

RESPONSES

RACE RELATIONS AND POLICING

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

PUBLIC COMPLAINTS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TRANSIT SERVICES

JUSTICE SYSTEM

CANCER TREATMENT

WASTE MANAGEMENT

LABOUR DISPUTE

COURT SYSTEM

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

ROUGE VALLEY

SEXUAL ASSAULT

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICES

POLIO VACCINE

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

VISITOR

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1989

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT, 1989

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr McCague moved resolution 25:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the Municipal Elections Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988, setting out new rules for municipal elections was introduced and passed hastily by the Liberal government less than a year before the 1988 municipal elections, and given that there have been numerous problems arising from the 1988 municipal elections; the government of Ontario should immediately initiate a review of the act, of the problems of administration of same, and should consider establishing some mechanism, such as a municipal election finance commission, which would ensure uniform application of the act.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr McCague: It is my pleasure to bring this matter to the attention of the House and, in particular, to the attention of the government. I understand that the member for Durham-York (Mr Ballinger) has a little problem with this resolution because the word “Liberal” is mentioned in it. However, I did point out to the then minister that these acts were being passed rather hastily, given that there was some four to five months’ space between the passage of the act and the 1988 municipal elections.

The minister, for some reason, seemed to want to rush it through. If the government has any notion that this was not passed hastily, there were some 840 municipalities across this province that told it. All the municipalities told it that it was being passed hastily and the opposition parties warned it that it was being passed hastily, and therefore there were some problems. I can understand the government being a little upset about the fact that it is cited in the motion, but by the same token, the citation it got is true.

I do not know how to handle that particularly. It must mean that as long as you do not admit you are wrong, you are right. That must be what the government is doing because, as I say, it was pointed out to it by 840 municipalities and has been reiterated. I canvassed the municipalities in the province of Ontario to get not their comments about the Liberal government, but their comments about weaknesses in the acts as they presently exist. I got 55 replies which were very thoughtful and have some suggestions for the government. I will be passing those on to the member for Durham-York a little later, hopefully for action in the ways suggested.

Because the acts were passed quickly, the 1988 municipal elections were fraught with some confusion, error and frustration, mainly on the side of those who were responsible for conducting those elections as the government told them they should conduct them. I have been told that there is an internal review of the municipal election process being conducted by the ministry, but I do not believe that is enough.

As I said, I contacted every municipality in Ontario about today’s resolution. Most who responded were not aware of the ministry review. All but one municipality agreed that there is a need for a second look at the changes introduced through Bill 106. If there is an internal review, why do these municipalities not know about it? How can the minister consider their concerns if they have not been contacted?

So far the ministry has only meet with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario on an informal basis to discuss possible amendments to the Municipal Elections Act. Neither of these groups has been asked to formally participate in a two-way discussion of what actually happened during the 1988 election and how to avert the problems in the next round in 1991.

Let’s just take a look at what did happen. One municipal clerk referred to the 1988 municipal election as “the most difficult, frustrating and time-consuming election I have personally experienced at any time during my 24 years.” He said that many of his deputy returning officers were so frustrated with the complexity of the process and the new enumeration methods that they will never again work in a municipal election.

Many of the small rural municipalities felt that the changes that were brought about by the act centred around correcting problems in the larger urban municipalities in general and in Metro Toronto in particular, a point that was brought to the attention of the minister during the passage of this act some two years ago.

The legislation did not recognize the diversity of Ontario’s 839 municipalities and it gave no consideration to the fact that election problems experienced in large, medium and small municipalities are vastly different. For example, in many of the small rural municipalities candidates raise no money through contributions and spend very little, if anything, on their campaigns, yet Bill 106 requires them to fill out contribution and expense forms. This, according to one municipality, creates unnecessary work for the clerk at an already busy time.

Another concern expressed by a number of small municipalities was the requirement for two advance polls. This, they say, puts undue stress on the community’s resources and is often unnecessary. They have no argument about one mandatory advance poll, but suggest that the second be optional.

Likewise, the requirement for handicapped access at all polling stations for the 1991 elections: Many small municipalities have indicated that this requirement will be difficult to meet, even though I agree with the ministry that it is necessary. The 1987 report of the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections did recognize the differences among different-sized municipalities and recommended that any new legislation should provide for flexibility, where possible, in some of the administration aspects.

Several municipalities said that changes introduced in Bill 106 resulted in abuse of the proxy system. Concerns were also voiced about the fact that the provisions of the bill allow a candidate to keep for his or her own purposes any contributions collected in excess of spending limits. This was considered to be a major flaw in Bill 106.

The administrative and contributions-and-expenses problems of the 1988 election were compounded by the new enumeration process which, as I indicated earlier, the government had passed shortly before the 1988 election. This resulted in confusion for municipal clerks, district returning officers and candidates alike. In one case, the number of changes to the preliminary list of electors increased by 3600 per cent compared to changes from the previous election.

Criticisms of the new legislation also focused on the role of the clerk. The clerk is almost always the enforcer of the legislation. Many municipalities considered the new rules gave too much responsibility for

interpretation to the clerk. This resulted in the act being interpreted in many different ways across the province.

The establishment of a municipal election finance commission, as I have suggested in the resolution, would ensure more uniform application of the act throughout the province. In fact, the 1987 report of the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections also recommended that a provincial body oversee municipal elections. They just called it by another name, the Ontario local government elections commission.

Whatever the commission is called, I think it is incumbent upon this government to at least consider establishing a separate commission for local government elections or directing Ontario’s Commission on Election Finances to oversee municipal elections in Ontario.

Almost all of the responses I received expressed a strong view that the confusion among candidates, the electorate and election staff was in most part due to the timing of the substantial amendments the Liberals enacted in 1988. According to the association of municipal clerks and treasurers, the provincial government contributed to the breakdown of the election process by adding to its complexity.

We will hear from the parliamentary assistant to the minister shortly and maybe he could answer these questions for me: What progress has his ministry made in the internal review, will he open up this review to individual municipalities and the public, will we see amendments to the Municipal Elections Act before 1991 and will these amendments include a commission such as the one recommended by the advisory committee or the election finances commission to oversee municipal elections in Ontario?

Mr Ballinger: I am very pleased to participate on behalf of the government this morning in debating resolution 25. Quite frankly, I am on pretty thin ice when I want to disagree with the member for Simcoe West (Mr McCague). In fact, the member for Simcoe West was the first member in the opposition when I was moved over on the rump side to take me under his wing and tell me to be quiet over there because the older members were having difficulty hearing the other speakers.

I would be very pleased to stand here in the Legislature this morning and support ballot item 27, but unfortunately I am afraid I cannot do that, I want to say to the member for Simcoe West. There are probably 101 reasons why I cannot do that.

Since I only have a few moments, because I am going to be splitting my time with the good member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr Faubert), I have to make the most of the time that I do have. I am surprised. If the member for Simcoe West wanted answers to those questions that he just asked in the House, I do not why he did not call me as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would have been pleased to pass on any information that is readily available about the review.

To be quite honest, I find it passing strange, to coin a phrase that is used in this House quite regularly, that we on the government side would be accused of hastily passing legislation. With the greatest respect, the Progressive Conservatives had the opportunity for 42 years to provide the municipal councils of the province of Ontario with some direction. They failed to do that in all those four decades plus two years of representing the provincial government here as the government. They failed to give any direction to municipalities.

From 1973 until 1985, more specifically from 1980 to 1985, when I was mayor of my own community in Uxbridge, just out of curiosity we did some data here on what the Progressive Conservatives did about municipal legislation related to contributions during that five-year period that I was mayor. Let me tell members, in 1980 the then PC government had a wonderful amendment to Bill 71. What they did was the amendment qualified the electors. There was a revision process, a nomination process, vacancy and other housekeeping changes -- no accountability, no direction to the municipalities about municipal contributions.

In 1982, Bill 10, another amendment: The issue addressed was term of office. We went from a two-year term to a three-year term. I remember that so well: nothing to deal about accountability. In 1982, the Conservatives again the government of the day, Bill 119, another amendment: increased fines from $1,000 to $2,000, procedures regarding the opening of ballot boxes, granting municipalities authority to pass bylaws regulating limits on election contributions and disclosing. Interesting. Here is the difference from our legislation: Our legislation is mandatory. Bill 106 is mandatory; Bill 119, done by the PC government back in 1982, was optional.

Local option: I say to the member for Simcoe West, where have I heard that before, that term in this House? At no time when they were in government did they say to the municipalities, “You must do this.” They said: “You may do this or you may not do it. It’s your choice.” Consequently, that is why we have Bill 106, because our government said, with the greatest respect to the member over there, “You must do this; it’s mandatory legislation.”

I want to say to the member for Simcoe West that, as with any other piece of legislation, I think it is great for the member to stand in the House to say, “You guys were in such a hurry to get this legislation through that you botched it up,” but I was here in the fall of 1987, rolling into 1988, when that gang over there was using stalling tactics, all kinds of petitions, bell ringing. We were trying to get our agenda on the table, but we could not do that because of all the other shenanigans that took place in this House. But we did get the bill through and it is a good bill.

In fact, this is the only province in all of Canada that has mandatory legislation. We are the only province with mandatory legislation, accountability for those over 800 municipal councils in Ontario.

I want to say to the member for Simcoe West, who said that he had polled across Ontario and had received 55 responses, there are almost 900 municipalities in Ontario. He received 55 responses and he is going to base his position on the response of 55 municipalities?

I want to say with the greatest respect, I would hope that when this review comes out from our minister, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr Sweeney) -- who as the member knows is a very consultative minister; there is going to be no review come out of his ministry that is not well thought out -- it will address those issues that most municipalities found were the problem after the last election. We have until 1991. That review is currently in progress. The minister said at the standing committee on estimates that the review was in progress and that he will look at all of those areas of concern.

Mr McCague: Check the date on this resolution.

Mr Ballinger: I say to the member for Simcoe West, he should check the Hansard from the estimates committee meeting, where the minister sat there -- and his own members from his caucus were there -- and where he publicly said he will review, and he will. By the time the election of 1991 rolls into place --

Mr McCague: That’s completely irrelevant.

Mr Ballinger: I do not think so. There you go, Mr Speaker. The member for Simcoe West says it is completely irrelevant. Let me say to the member for Simcoe West, you guys over there cannot have it both ways.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you address your remarks through the Speaker. please?

Mr Ballinger: Sorry, Mr Speaker, but I am being harassed by the member for Simcoe West.

I just want to say, in the short two years that I have been here, I would really have thought that had the member for Simcoe West really cared about any proposed or future amendments, he would have drafted a resolution that he knew we would have supported. But no, he did not want our support at all. That is why he drafted this in such a fashion that we on this side could not support the resolution, because he does not want us to support the resolution at all. He wants to take issue so that he can write, as the critic, to all the municipalities in Ontario and say: “Those big, bad Liberals, they don’t listen.

They wouldn’t do the necessary amendments. They rushed through the legislation. It’s no good.”

Contrary to the belief of the member for Simcoe West, again, I want to reiterate, we are the only province in the Dominion of Canada that has enacted mandatory legislation. You guys did not do that. You gave optional legislation. I was there. You guys did nothing to make any accountability in the process. I think the member for Simcoe West has a lot of nerve to stand up here in the House, quite frankly, and say, “What the Liberals have done is insufficient.” If that is not the biggest joke I have heard in my 15 years in the political arena, I do not know what is.

I just want to say to the member for Simcoe West, so that I can leave some time for my good friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, that the review is coming down the pike. We will address those issues, which the minister believes are a major concern to the people of Ontario, and we will make the necessary amendments.

The Deputy Speaker: May I take this opportunity to remind members that the standing orders state very clearly that no member may address another member directly, but through the Speaker, and using the third-person singular or plural.

Now, I am sure the member for Hamilton West will follow these standing orders very well, and the rest of you will also.

Mr Allen: Mr Speaker. I simply want to rise and report to you that the member for Oshawa (Mr Breaugh) intends to participate in this debate. He has been held up on the road. He sent an indication that he hopes to be able to take his turn in the rotation at a future time. He should not be very much longer.

The Deputy Speaker: Who else would like to participate in the debate in the meantime?

Mr Faubert: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed. I will try to adhere to the standing orders and address my remarks through you.

I would like to report that while I support the spirit of the resolution of the member for Simcoe West, and despite the fact that I am in support of some of the suggestions he made, not only in the resolution but in his speech in support of it, I cannot in good conscience vote in favour because of so many inaccuracies which are contained within it.

Since this government took office, there has been more reform of our municipal system of government than at any time in recent history. Reforms were implemented which have been talked about for decades.

These include Bill 29, which was implementing direct election to Metropolitan Toronto, which reformed Metropolitan Toronto. It reduced the size of both Metro and area councils and made the position of chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto regional council directly accountable to the electorate.

A new voter enumeration system was introduced by Bill 77, with a mail-in enumeration system which achieved and improved an impressive 90 per cent response rate, at less cost and with more accuracy than previous systems.

With Bill 106, arising from the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections, by the way, which reported in February 1987 -- that was the consultation that went into this bill -- every municipal candidate could run for election under an equitable system of ceilings on campaign spending by the individual candidates, and ceilings on campaign contributions.

As my colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member for Durham York, has said, the changes to the municipal election system were brought about in 1988 and represent a vast improvement over what had existed previously.

The new legislation was designed to create a more level playing field on which people committed to their communities could run for office without having to spend large amounts of money. It limited donations to a candidate from any one contributor to $750 and it limited the amount any candidate could spend, depending on the position the candidate was seeking and the number of electors in the jurisdiction. It has been admitted, reviewing what happened during the last election, that this is one area that needs reviewing and indeed is being reviewed, and the mandatory disclosure requirements allowed people to find out just who was paying the bills for municipal election campaigns.

The member for Simcoe West suggested in his resolution that these amendments were passed hastily. It is strange to see the opposition criticizing this government for lack of action -- not for its lack of action indeed, but for its pace of action. To claim that this legislation was passed hastily is doing a grave injustice to the impressive legislative record in this area which I previously outlined and indeed to the consultation process that went on before it.

As a 17-year member of both Scarborough and Metro council, I, along with most of my colleagues on those councils with whom I had served, recognized the need for reforms and promoted such reforms for many years. I suggest that had the government not acted promptly and decisively in these matters, the opposition would have been proposing resolutions criticizing this government for inaction.

We all know that no legislation is perfect, and as a reform-directed government, we are not afraid to review and reform our own legislation.

As recently as last September, I wrote to the Minister of Municipal Affairs regarding some concerns that I had with municipal campaign surpluses of some municipal candidates. Indeed, in Metro, in the greater Toronto area, some surpluses were reported to be between $3,000 and $21,000 in municipal election campaigns. This money was raised under the auspices of its being used to finance campaign expenditures. However, if the municipality had not opted for the tax credit system -- candidates now can spend their campaign surpluses as they wish. This is not new and it is not the result of this legislation.

In fact. campaign surpluses have likely existed as long as municipal governments have. I do not recall having experienced this luxury during my own municipal campaign. but I know that if I had, in good conscience, those moneys could not have been spent for personal or noncampaign use.

This is the first time I recall this issue being out in the open. Indeed, it is out in the open because there is mandatory disclosure. Disclosure is the key and it brings accountability. When the facts are out in the open, as the legislation requires. people can hold their elected representatives accountable for their actions. In fact, I would argue the people have just such a responsibility to do that

I recall the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr Eakins). as former Minister of Municipal Affairs, said during estimates, quoting a well-known political commentator, “In a free society, the state does not administer the affairs of men. It administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs.”

I think that is the philosophy behind the reforms that were made to the Municipal Elections Act. The member for Simcoe West has said he wants a comprehensive review and I agree with him on that. Indeed, when I wrote to the minister, he wrote back to me and he said, and I quote from his letter of 12 October, “The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is presently undertaking a comprehensive review of all issues and concerns arising from the 1988 municipal elections.”

Indeed, he points out that the review also includes consultation with such groups as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario.

Since the review that this legislation recommends, which I support, is already under way, I suggest that this resolution is redundant and I suggest that the members of the House give it the vote that it deserves.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe West may use some of the 15 minutes.

Mr McCague: Mr Speaker, we have just a little problem here, I guess, in that one party missed its turn. The second person from our party is not here at this time, and I am sorry that the member for Oshawa is not here, because he would darned soon straighten this government out, if he were. No doubt he is reciting his speech from somewhere.

Mr D. W. Smith: You depend on the NDP, do you?

Mr Faubert: You’re really struggling, George.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr McCague: Mr Speaker, given the problem that we are in at the moment, could you assist us? Could I talk for a while longer and refute all that --

The Deputy Speaker: You may use all the 15 minutes your party has, plus your two-minute response, if you want.

Mr McCague: Okay. Well, my colleague the member for Markham (Mr Cousens) should be along at any time.

I can understand the member for Durham-York and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere having to stand in their places this morning and take the party line and try and shoot down a perfectly legitimate and sensible resolution that I put in Orders and Notices back on 25 July. The member for Durham-York refers to the fact that his minister said in estimates a few weeks ago what was happening. I know that. I was chairman of the committee. I asked the question. That has nothing to do with it. He was just filling time; that is simply all he was doing.

Mr Ballinger: That is what you are doing.

Mr McCague: He has no defence. The resolution is entirely accurate and should be acted upon, but somebody in his government said, “No, we cannot do that because it says in there ‘The Liberals acted hastily.’” Well, how nuts.

I have had several from his party come over to me and say, “That is an excellent resolution you have, but the member for Durham-York will not let us support it because it says the Liberals acted hastily.” It is the only time in their lives they ever acted hastily, but it was the wrong time to act hastily.

There is not a doubt in the world that every municipality told the government it is acting hastily on this. The municipal elections process is a big process for most municipal clerks, and I think really the key to it all -- the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is from a big Metropolitan Toronto-type council; the member for Durham-York is not. He is out there in the sticks like I am, and the councils are small and we do not need --

Mr Ballinger: You be careful. My mother is watching you.

Mr McCague: He talks about giving direction from Queen’s Park out to those smaller places. We do not need his advice out there, and he did not need it when he was there either. He did not need that advice. I do not know where he got that whole list of garbage that he brought up about what he wanted the government to do when he was there. He did not want them to do anything. He wanted them to leave him alone, and there are times when it is better to do nothing. But this government has stuck its foot in it, and that is what we are trying to point out to members in this resolution.

It is a friendly enough resolution. Everybody knows that it was done hastily, and everybody knows that we should make the best effort possible to make it better. That is what I am suggesting to the honourable member. He does not have to take my suggestions, but for heaven’s sake, why does he not ask the municipal clerks and treasurers out there, who really are the people who have to conduct those elections and have some problems with it?

Mr Faubert: We are.

Mr Ballinger: We are.

Mr McCague: Sure, he is now. He got the lead out of him after I put this resolution in Orders and Notices. That is very clear.

Mr Ballinger: Oh, get away. You better check the seat of your pants.

Mr Keyes: See where the lead really is.

Mr McCague: Mr Speaker, the members are very agitated this morning, and in particular the member for Durham-York.

The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, one group that knows what it is talking about, even if the minister or the member for Durham-York does not think so, points out that at least part of the concern with respect to the confusion surrounding the 1988 municipal election must rest with the timing of the substantial amendments that were enacted in 1988. That is what they say.

If the minister or the member does not agree with me that they are the people who should know, this is what they are saying, and this is what they said on 26 September of this year, after I put the resolution in Orders and Notices, after I wrote them a nice letter saying, “Could we have any comments on this particular resolution?” There was nobody who wrote back and said:

“You are wrong. The government didn’t act hastily at all.”

I had members over there come over and whisper to me quietly.

Mr Ballinger: Name names.

Mr McCague: I will, but outside with you afterwards. Even the honourable member for Durham-York feels bad that his government will not let him support such an abundantly sensible resolution. He feels real sorry about that and tries to cover it up by making a lot of noise. However, we cannot do anything about that.

But to go on to quote, and I am sure members want me to quote from this, the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario says, By continuing to add to the complexity of the process and by continuing to do so in a time frame that does not permit the adequate training of election officials or the education of candidates or the electorate, the provincial government is contributing to the breakdown of the electoral process.” I mentioned who said this.

Now, if the member for Durham York wants to get up and say these guys are full of prunes and that this is not so, I would be glad to hear from him. The member asked me why did I not ask him these questions that I put on the record a little bit earlier. If he would just sit in his seat for a moment and listen to them, I am sure that he could answer the quiz during the discussion of this bill.

Just for the member’s reaffirmation, the questions were:

(1) What progress has his ministry made in the internal review?

(2) Will he open up this review to individual municipalities and the public?

(3) Will we see amendments to the Municipal Elections Act before 1991?

(4) Will these amendments include a commission such as the one recommended by the advisory committee or the Commission on Election Finances to oversee municipal elections in Ontario?

The member will not have an opportunity to put these on the record today, but I am sure that he will check Hansard and write me a letter which will indicate the answer to all these problems.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Cureatz): We are continuing the debate of ballot item 27, private member’s notice of motion 25, Mr McCague’s resolution. Looking at the rotation, I understand there is a possibility of the member for Markham participating in this debate.

Mr Cousens: There is just a tremendous amount one has to say on this subject, and then there is the fact that I had a great deal to say in the standing committee on public accounts, from which I just came. It made it very difficult.

The first thing I want to say on this, if I may, is that I would like to congratulate the member for Simcoe West for bringing this to the House for our consideration. Something that happens in the Legislature is that we are very fortunate periodically to have gifted members from different tidings, and one of the most valuable, hard-working and experienced people in our caucus, and I can speak for our caucus, happens to be the member for Simcoe West.

I want to thank him for the leadership he gives not only in this resolution but also in what he has done for the people of Ontario, for his riding, and certainly for the people in the municipalities who are concerned with what is going on with municipal politics.

I have to say that when we had Bill 106 come before this House not all that long ago, it was one of those bills that came in very hastily. It seemed ill prepared. It surprised many of the clerks and the people at the municipal level as to just what it was going to do to them and how it was going to cause municipal elections to function. It raised serious questions about the enumeration process. It did cause a number of recounts across Metro.

Certainly it had an effect on clerks in the way in which they were conducting their business. It wreaked a certain amount of havoc and, I would have to suggest, for the sake of making the electoral system function as it should, so that everybody who is part of this province and every municipality is encouraged to run, encouraged to participate, encouraged to vote and is satisfied that all those processes are handled in a way that understands and appreciates the complexities of democracy.

Is it not funny? Here we are in Canada taking democracy so much for granted, and yet the people in eastern Europe are clamouring for it. They cannot wait to be able to use the ballot box. They cannot wait to be able to make their views known. To them, that is something they have been deprived of and now they have a chance of getting it, and look how excited they are. I know I am excited for the people in East Germany and I am excited for people in Czechoslovakia, Poland and all around the world -- Namibia, where they have just got the vote.

There is so much happening for democracy. Why can we not also have the same sense of urgency around the democratic tights that take place at the municipal level in our province of Ontario? To me that is something we can encourage and build upon by having a process that works and having a process that says to those people who will vote, or those who should vote or should run, that they are satisfied the system is working as it should.

I do not think there is any doubt that the survey that was done by the member for Simcoe West has determined that there is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction across this province among municipalities and others with the failure of the province to do something right. The province comes along and seems to have the power of its large number of seats and, therefore, whatever it does seems to be right just by virtue of its size. It is not.

I happen to believe there is an awful lot that could be done to clean up this bill. It has to do with the potentiality for corruption and problems that go outside of the thing. Let’s not hide it. It is there. Yet how do we have a chance to get the public involved unless the government gives some leadership on this issue? The fact of the matter is that this bill we are looking at among the municipal election acts -- there are different ones -- seems to be an open-ended invitation to corruption.

What happens is that any municipal politician or person who runs for office raises the money for the electoral process. The question is raised as to what they do with the left-over money in the coffers. What happens if they do not spend all that money?

I have to ask you, Mr Speaker, what happened with the money raised by regional councillor Michael DiBiase in Vaughan, who raised over $100,000 and had a surplus of $8.608, after spending $26,000 on a victory party. What is going to happen with his left-over money? What is going to happen to Frank Cippolone, who raised $66,000 or more and had $27,000 left over, or Peter Meffe in Vaughan, who had another $11 ,000 left over?

How many politicians had money left over and how many of those dollars ended up in their own pockets? I do not know, but I would say there should not be a system allowed to exist that allows for money that is given for the political process to end up in their back pockets.

Mr Ballinger: You allowed it for 40 years.

Mr Cousens: If the member for Durham-York supports that, he is less a man than I thought he was. Maybe when he was mayor of Uxbridge they did that. I doubt it, because he happens to be a man of some integrity, but let’s put the integrity in the law so that everybody is going to be protected. All they are doing is giving an invitation for corruption by having a bill that is so open-ended; it is not really closing the doors to those opportunities for people. I withdraw any allegation about the member for Durham-York because I happen to know him to be an honourable man and I would not want to accuse him of something that is going on right now.

We are talking about a situation that does not need to exist. It could be modified in such a way that we would have a commission that looks after the elections of municipal politicians. We have one at the provincial level and one at the federal level. Why do we not have some kind of commission that can be used as a buffer to answer those questions and resolve those concerns’? If a municipal politician has a question about the electoral process, then he can go to that commission, receive assistance, guidance and supervision.

This is not something to be taken lightly; it is something that we as a Legislature should take very, very seriously. I think it is for us to do everything we can to make sure that the democratic process in this province at every level works correctly and well. It does not right now. There is no doubt that there are still -- I just wish the member for Simcoe East (Mr McLean) was here because he could tell us in detail what has happened in Tiny township. I understand there is still a situation there where a recount has not been completed yet. Why’? Why do the media not look into that one? There are enough other --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: There are no media around here today and they are probably not even watching this thing. They could not care less it seems.

I happen to care a great deal about the resolution that has been put forward by the member for Simcoe West. We do not want to open the can of worms. We want to let everybody in Ontario think that things are just perfect in the grand province of Ontario. Until you start dealing with some of the issues and the problems that are being raised, it is not perfect, but we are in a position that we can make it better and we can make it better by making amendments and changes to the law. Open it up so that everybody can have a chance to just see what can be improved.

That is what the member for Simcoe West is asking for and that is what I am supporting. In fact, after it has gone through public dialogue and public discussions, the Liberal majority comes along and says, “Things are just perfect,” then I will have to sit down until we get another resolution like this. But eventually they are going to accept the fact that things need to be improved and that is what we are asking for in this bill.

Mr Ballinger: You missed the debate, Don. You should have come early.

The Acting Speaker: Continuing the debate, the member for Oshawa.

Mr Breaugh: To tell you the truth, Mr Speaker, I would like to give you about 15 minutes on the road system in and around Metropolitan Toronto. There were a couple of drivers on the Don Valley Parkway who deserved a few words this morning too. But I will not do that.

The resolution before us I think is a good one. As a matter of fact, there is only a little part of it that I would disagree with and I will come to that in a minute.

Last year, in the course of our deliberations here, we went through a rather large number of changes to the electoral process municipally. Most of those were things that many of us have argued for a number of years. The concerns that were expressed in the House were not about the principles of the things that the government was proposing. It was basically an argument about how practical it was to try to do all of those things in a very short period of time.

Now I guess, to be fair, one should give both sides of the argument. There was nothing that this government proposed just prior to the last municipal elections that was secret. There was nothing that had not been discussed a great deal over the last decade. It had been .the subject of commissions set out by the provincial government. It had been discussed by various committees in the municipal organizations. It had been discussed here.

There were a number of changes that were long overdue. The question was not whether they were good changes or bad changes. The question was whether they could be implemented effectively in time for that particular set of municipal elections. In my view, I did not think they could be. Hindsight, being one of the best ways to watch how the electoral process works, tell us that it did create some problems. I do not recall any set of municipal elections when there was quite so much confusion about what the rules of the game were. I do not recall a municipal election when the lawyers have been quite so busy.

I do not recall one where there have been so many challenges to the validity of the electoral process.

We can withstand all of this. We did obviously. Society did not crumble. The municipal process grinds on, but there were things that happened that frankly should not have happened. It is confusing to watch election night results that are challenged that night, challenged the next day, challenged repeatedly thereafter and, in some instances, we are still not sure who actually won the election. Actually, in part, some of the stuff is not the government’s fault. This government did not make the decision to use a different voting process in certain of our jurisdictions.

Like the city of Toronto, that caused immense problems. The end result of that, I am told, is that somebody used the wrong-sized paper and so the voting procedures could not work.

Those are things that you cannot foresee, but some of the things should have been thought about beforehand, and I know were. I am reasonably sure that the minister of the day did not act in a sense of rashness. I think he honestly believed that these things were possible to do in a very short period of time. My experience in municipal politics told me they were not. They might have been possible if you had, for example, a provincial election machinery at work where it was all done out of the jurisdiction of one person.

Then from one centralized source you could make changes of that nature to the electoral process because one person was making the decision, one person would be laying out the instructions for the elections to be held all across Ontario.

It would have been possible on that basis, but that is not the way that municipal elections are conducted. They happen in a variety of ways in different municipalities, some of which are very sophisticated places one could argue, I think, in the city of Toronto, North York, Oshawa, Windsor, Thunder Bay. In any of our large urban centres there is an ability to compete with whatever changes this or any other government wanted to put forward, to adjust or to get ready in a fairly short period of time, because they have the machinery. They have the people to make those changes happen.

But in many of our smaller municipalities the entire clerk’s office consists of somebody who is there a half a day a week. That is hardly conducive to picking upon what the changes are, let alone implementing them. There was a good deal of confusion. In our idea of a democracy confusion does not help much. That, I think, is at the heart of what this resolution talks about.

It is probably true that this is not news. I recall after the municipal elections there was a spate of news stories about confusion on election day, confusion about what the rules were, confusion about whether people had to conform to a municipal election expenses law or not. I think there were two municipalities that actually opted into the system in total. Most of them have gone through the disclosure period now. Most of the people who ran for municipal office did conform to the disclosure provisions, but not everyone did. Now the clerks are sitting around wondering: “What do we do if they did not offer a financial statement? Do we assume they did not spend any money?”

For those of us who have been in municipal politics for a while, it is quite true. I know lots of people who get elected municipally and do not spend a dime. They barely buy a cup of coffee with a constituent. They do not put out any pamphlets. They do not advertise. They walk up and down the streets of their community and talk to people, which is probably politics in its purest form.

But some people did disclose and there was some kind of confusing results. I have been involved in a number of elections. I do not recall an election that I have ever been involved in where at the end of it all we had a surplus, a pile of money and we did not know what to do with it. There are municipal candidates who have declared a rather substantial surplus.

What happens to that money’? Do they go and buy a new Chevy? I hope they do. We are a little short of Chevy sales in Oshawa this week, so it would be nice if they did that. Does the money go to the clerk? Does it go back to the people who gave them the money?

There is an initial canvassing of who donates to municipal elections. This is one of the good things that I believe came about through the recent changes. There is now a record of sorts of who donates to municipal political campaigns. I find it a little disturbing, for example, that the development industry is quite so active in financing municipal political efforts.

This is pretty natural. When you stop to think about it, who is interested in municipal planning decisions? I know a lot of developers who are very interested in municipal planning decisions. They are among the few people who attend planning committee meetings, for example. They and their lawyers and their architects and anybody else they can drag up are always at the local hearings about planning matters. It should not be surprising then that, come election time, those folks have an interest.

Now here is the interesting part. We know that they are interested. We know that they donate heavily to municipal campaigns. Does that have an influence on local politicians? Everybody I know who is elected municipally would say, “Oh, gosh, no, we would never let them influence our decisions,” but they are there and they certainly listen to them. If they donate to their campaigns, perhaps they listen a little more attentively to the arguments from the development community than they do to those from the South Oshawa Ratepayers’ Association that forgot to donate to their campaign.

All of us go through the same process as well. All of us have people who contribute to our political campaigns and on a regular basis in here somebody pops up with the latest disclosure statement and says, “Somebody gave you $750 and so that has influenced your decision.” We do not really know, to be honest, whether it does or does not, but it is true and there is no question about it that a developer who donates handsomely to a local political campaign expects something in return and he gets something in return. What we do not know is precisely what he gets.

For example, I think it would be wrong to say that he just paid $2,000 into a local political campaign. For members who want to challenge that, “That’s not legal. They are not supposed to do that. There’s supposed to be a limit,” let’s not be too stupid. If there is a developer out there who cannot figure out how to get around the biggest loophole in the Election Finances Act, he is not going to be in business very long.

If there is a developer in the world who cannot figure out that if there is a cap on the amount that you are allowed to donate and the cap is $500 or $750 or $1,000 and you want to give somebody $10,000, you can probably get out a calculator and figure out how many of your employees are going to donate to that campaign. These folks are not stupid. That is exactly what they do.

There is something that I think needs a little look at again: How appropriate is that? How would we control that? Are the disclosure statements accurate? Do we have any means of checking those statements? Do we have any means of dealing with the surpluses? Now, frankly, is the time when the government ought to be taking a look at all of this. All of the changes that happened before the last municipal election should be reviewed actively by the government. I am sure there are ministerial committees that are doing precisely this now.

I think the resolution itself simply calls for the attention of members here to the same kind of process, so I do not think the member is asking for anything which is unusual or unwieldy.

I want to get to the one thing where I have a little disagreement with the resolution. The member is suggesting that this government did something hastily. If anything, this government cannot be accused of moving hastily on anything. I have never seen a government that came in here so regularly with a bill in this hand that it touted to be the bill of all time, and then the next day walked in with 52 amendments in his hand to amend the bill of all time. This government has made a practice of that.

I want to speak just for a moment or two about the legislative process and how it should work. As I understand it, it is a long, slow, painful thing. To get a piece of legislation out of ministry staff, to get it through whatever kind of consultation process we want, to get it through all the interministerial committees, all the committees of cabinet, through the cabinet, through the Legislature itself, through our legislative process, to get all the regulations written, to get all the sections proclaimed, to get it actually put into law and into practice takes a long time, and it ought to.

It should not be a quick process. There is a very good reason why this is along, painful piece of business. It is because, very simply, once we make a law, once we put it in practice, it is not simple to change it. So it should be along, slow, thoughtful process. It should also be an open process. It should be one where the contact points with the people who are going to be affected by this law are visible: we know where that consultation took place. That should not be done in secret, in my view.

It should also be a process whereby, when the government is ready to actually introduce a bill into this chamber, it should be reasonably confident that that bill is in its final form. I want to spend a little bit of time on this because I think this is important and it is a practice in this House which I see happening more and more and which I regret.

We sometimes chastise the previous government for really dragging its feet on introducing the legislation. But having seen kind of two modes at work, I think I would prefer that one as opposed to what I see happening now. I get nervous, frankly, when I see a minister of the crown stand up proposing legislation today and then going off to committee with a raft of amendments tomorrow. Where did these come from? If these are good ideas, if these are just drafting changes, why did someone not pick them up in the internal process before the bill was tabled?

I believe that is an indication that there is something wrong in the process that this government is using. It may well be that these are just drafting problems, but I cannot believe that. I see more and more amendments being proposed that I believe are substantive. If they are drafting problems, I would call to the government’s attention that that is an indication of some sloppiness somewhere. We know that the particular words that are chosen and the way they are placed in a clause in a bill are important. They are important.

Mr Haggerty: That is not common language.

Mr Breaugh: It is not common language, that is true. This is not writing a note to your mother about why you are going to be absent today. This is going to become a law. The exact word that we use has a legislative history attached to it. It has a framework. When it goes to court, we know that certain words will be dealt with in certain ways. I simply want to pick up on that point because I think the government is somewhat guilty of doing some things that are less than what the people of this province deserve. They deserve reasonable amounts of consideration.

If there is something in here that happened, it was not a matter of haste. It was a matter of timing. I believe that the government misjudged and I believe that many municipalities told it up front that it was making a mistake when it introduced those things at such a late date. I think the practical application of the changes to the Municipal Elections Act were such that municipalities deserved more notice than they got.

If the government had problems during the course of the last municipal election, they were problems it should have known about. They were certainly told about them here by members of the opposition. I know they were told about it them members of various municipal organizations, who tried to caution the government that it was suggesting things that they were not in disagreement with, but, and they told the government this loud and clear, it could not carry out those changes on that scale in such a short time frame and that they needed more notice.

I believe the government committee told the government precisely that as well, that there would be a cutoff date after which the changes were not practical any more and it would have problems.

I think there were difficulties in the last municipal election. Those problems still exist today. Now should be the time for the government of Ontario, without the pressure of an election in the near future, to take a careful examination of what actually went wrong and what it might do to fix it. That is precisely what this resolution calls for and that is why I believe members on all sides ought to support the resolution that is before us this morning.

Mr McCague: I would like to thank the member for Oshawa for his insight in this matter and my colleague the member for Markham. I would like to thank several backbenchers from the governing party who came to me and said: “It is a great resolution you have. I would love to support it. I think you are right, but the government will not let us support it. So be it and we will talk to you another day.”

There is every indication that this was a hasty bill. That was mentioned over and over again prior to its passing in this House and there can be no argument about that.

The member for Oshawa referred to the difficulty with legislation that is being introduced by this government and the number of amendments that result between the date of its introduction and the date of its passage. Bill 77, one of the bills we were talking about, was introduced and when it went to committee stage the government itself brought in 30 amendments to that bill. There has to be something the matter. Maybe they did not listen to the municipalities prior to the introduction of the bill. Maybe the municipalities had input between the introduction and the passage.

But to have 30 amendments to a small bill is something that I think is an indication of the way this government brings things into this House. Do they give any thought to it before that time?

It is an abundantly sensible motion that deserves the support of all members of this House. All municipalities support it.

PURCHASE OF WINE BY CREDIT CARDS

Mr Dietsch moved resolution 31:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that credit card purchases are not permitted in winery stores; and that purchasing by credit card is a socially accepted method of payment; and that wine beverages can be purchased at hotels, restaurants and duty free stores using a credit card, the government of Ontario should make changes to the appropriate provincial government policies in order to allow for the purchase of wine by credit card in wineries and wine store outlets.

Mr Dietsch: Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me this chance to discuss my private member’s resolution. As you are aware, it has to do with a change in policy direction that would allow for the purchase of wine by credit card in wineries and wine store outlets.

Imagine that you are a tourist in Niagara-on-the-Lake and after you have had a very enjoyable lunch at one of the many fine restaurants, your next destination is a local winery. You are interested in Ontario wines and wish to sample different varieties. Luckily, you have managed to hit the winery just as a limited-edition wine has become available. You taste it. it is just what you have been looking for. You decide to buy three bottles.

As you prepare to pay, the salesperson remarks on how fortunate you are to have come at this time since this wine only comes out once a year. You respond that it is the perfect complement for a small 50th wedding anniversary dinner you have been planning for your parents. You hand her your credit card and she politely tells you she cannot accept it. You feel insulted. Embarrassed, she kindly explains that wine unfortunately cannot be purchased by credit card at a winery or wine store outlet in Ontario. In your wallet you find $10, nowhere near enough to purchase these bottles. Totally embarrassed, you leave, unable to purchase that wine.

As you walk to the tour bus, you cannot figure it out. Why? Just at lunch, you had a bottle of wine with friends and paid for it by credit card. What is the difference? Hotels and restaurants accept credit cards. Liquor Control Board of Ontario duty-free stores accept credit cards. Wineries do not. Is this 1989 in Ontario?

I believe that the extension of credit card facilities to Ontario winery retail stores probably represents the single largest increase in convenience that can be offered to consumers. Credit cards can now be used to buy prescription drugs. pay your dentist, buy groceries, pick up your dry cleaning -- an endless list of services. In fact, the Law Society of Upper Canada allows its lawyers to accept payment by Visa, Mastercard or American Express.

It is indeed ironic, not to mention discriminatory. that consumers may sit in a tavern all afternoon drinking and then pay for it with a credit card --

Mr Wildman: You advocate that?

Mr Dietsch: -- while the same convenience is denied to those who wish to purchase a bottle of Ontario wine for home consumption or for that special occasion.

Purchase of wine by credit cards is widely accepted in the United States. Our neighbour, New York state, has moved to permit purchases by credit cards, a very progressive step for its wine industry.

At this time, let me speak to a number of different but related points. Given the combination of market forces and current federal trade policies, the use of credit cards in wine stores could form an important adjunct to a broader government strategy focused at lessening the impact these forces are sure to have on the Ontario wine industry, particularly in the Niagara region.

Mr Wildman: When is that going to happen?

Mr Dietsch: As members of this House are no doubt aware, to comply with the provisions of GATT and the free trade agreement Ontario began in 1989 to phase out the markup differentials that are viewed to currently give Ontario a competitive advantage. Over the next nine years these differentials will be reduced. American competitors such as Gallo have been increasingly aggressive in their marketing strategies within our province.

Tourism itself, my friend opposite will like to know, plays an extremely important role. When people visit anywhere, they like to be able to bring something home with them to remind them of the places they have visited, or that special gift for family and friends.

Winery tours have developed into a major tourism attraction. They have also proven to be a very key component in marketing programs. Many consumers are interested these days in wines and the high calibre, I might add, of the wines being produced in Ontario wineries. Tours of wineries allow consumers the benefit of the information provided by qualified guides, and they sample wines to enhance their understanding as well. A natural conclusion to these tours is being able to purchase wines they have found suitable to their taste and their palate.

Permitting the use of credit cards in retail stores and wineries would involve some 20 retail operations throughout this province, and all are located within areas strongly identified internationally as tourist designations.

Furthermore, the sheer volume of tourists throughout the region’s wineries is staggering.

Some statistics: Hillebrand winery throughout 1989 has conducted 600 prebooked, private tours. There have been approximately 475 dropin bus tours bringing in roughly in the neighbourhood of perhaps 22,000 to 23,000 people. Finally, from December 1988 until the present 1,900 public tours have taken place. In September alone, over 3,000 people visited that single winery.

Between 70 and 75 per cent of these ask why they cannot use their credit cards to make purchases. It does not take a mathematician or my friends opposite to realize how much business has been lost there, not to mention the large number of American tourists who do not purchase because of this single inconvenience.

lnniskillin’s famous ice wine, for example, which is available only once a year and in very limited quantities, sells for $40 per half bottle. How many of the members of this House carry enough cash to purchase three or four of those bottles? In my riding, Konzelmann winery, Reif Winery and Château des Charmes wineries have similar inconveniences placed on them because of this policy.

The benefits of credit card use are simple and practical. We know credit cards will not solve the competitive problems entirely, but they may play an important role in attempting to halt the shrinkage of the wine and grape industry in the Niagara area. It would be a boost at a time when both trade policy and market forces are pressuring the industry. Perhaps allowing wineries to do business on Sundays would be another; of course, only those in tourist-designated areas.

Credit cards permit purchases that otherwise may not be made. Consumers generally do not carry large amounts of cash, particularly --

Mr Wildman: Particularly if they’re spending it all on booze.

Mr Dietsch: -- because of the convenience of using credit cards. If my friend opposite would like to listen, he might learn something.

Retail outlets on the premises of wineries are likely to make sales to tourists and other purchasers who have attended a winery tour and who may not have easy access to Ontario products otherwise. After all, the Niagara region is a designated tourist attraction worldwide.

Other small-purchase consumers might not otherwise make purchases if a credit card was not accepted. Past experience at two airport duty-free stores indicates that there were 150 to 200 customers per day being turned away because they could not make credit card purchases, estimated at approximately $2,000 per day in lost sales. That is just one segment of the business.

My belief is that interested tourists, consumers or wine connoisseurs would definitely enjoy this opportunity. At the same time, we would be assisting an industry that I know could use a significant boost at a time when market forces and trade policies are making it more difficult for them to compete, market forces, I might add, that are outside the wineries’ control.

I believe the use of credit cards in wineries and winery retail stores would be perceived as a very concrete action in this direction, and I whole-heartedly ask members in this House to give that resolution support.

Mr Wildman: I must admit that I am of two minds on this resolution. I enjoy Niagara wines.

My wife and I often purchase Niagara wines for dinner on Sunday, whether it be Inniskillin, Château des Charmes or others. It is very good quality and very competitive. The cottage wineries in Niagara have made a name for themselves and I am sure they will be able to compete in the more difficult competitive world today with Gallo, some of the European wines and wines from other parts of the world.

However, I do not think the resolution put forward by the member for St Catharines-Brock this morning in any way responds to the very difficult problems facing the wineries in Ontario or the grape growers who supply those wineries. In a way it is almost an insult to them to have this kind of resolution brought forward as some sort of solution to their market problems.

To suggest that allowing consumers to purchase wine by credit card is somehow going to resolve the difficulties these wineries are now facing as a result of the inability of the provincial government to respond to their needs in the face of the GATT resolutions and GAIT decisions and the negotiation of a so-called free trade agreement between the United States and Canada by the federal government, I think is really insulting.

When I first saw the resolution in Orders and Notices, I suspected that perhaps the reason it was there was because today is the day Beaujolais Nouveau comes on to the market. Maybe the member was hoping to take a few bottles home with him. If this resolution could pass and the regulations changed quickly enough, he could purchase more than he would be able to purchase because of his low cash reserves.

However, in listening to his speech I came to the conclusion that he really was serious in saying that it was not for those kinds of reasons, but rather was to deal with the problems facing the wine industry and the suppliers of that industry in Canada, specifically in Ontario and particularly in Niagara. He also went on to say that he thought it would help the tourist industry in Niagara.

Let’s look at these problems for a moment. The member indicated that this policy change could be an adjunct to a broader government strategy to deal with the market problems facing the wineries in Ontario today. I think those are the words he used. It would benefit us all, and certainly benefit the wine industry in Ontario a great deal, if instead of debating this kind of resolution we were in fact debating a broader government strategy for dealing with the problems facing the wine industry in Ontario.

It is unfortunate that the member for St Catharines-Brock had to bring this resolution before the House because his government -- the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- has failed to respond to the concerns and problems facing the wine industry in Ontario. Rather than an adjunct to a broader government policy, this is really an excuse for some kind of policy change when absolutely nothing is happening.

Mr Dietsch: How many grapes do they grow in Sault Ste Marie?

Mr Wildman: The member asks how many grapes they grow in Sault Ste Marie. Well, they do not grow very many grapes in Sault Ste Marie because of the climate, although certainly the ethnic community in the Sault is well known for purchasing concentrates and making its own wines, very good quality wines. Many of those concentrates used to come from Niagara. Unfortunately, now the vast majority of those concentrates come from the United States because of the free trade agreement.

It does not in any way assist Niagara grape producers to have this kind of resolution before the House. We all recognized that the grape growers, particularly those supplying the large Ontario wineries -- I use “large” in a relative sense because they certainly are not large in comparison to their American competitors -- were going to be in very serious difficulty when the federal Conservative government negotiated the free trade agreement; so a program was developed to assist grape growers to get out of the industry or to take their vineyards out and to try to change to some other kind of crop.

Interestingly enough, the Ontario growers got a lot less than their counterparts in British Columbia. I suspect that is simply because the provincial Liberal government here in Ontario, in this jurisdiction, was so less effective in negotiating with the federal Tories than the government in British Columbia, for which I would not give any praise, other than to say at least perhaps they stand up for their grape growers better than the Liberal government does in Ontario.

Mr D. R. Cooke: They wanted a government that was in favour of free trade. Isn’t that what you’re saying?

Mr Wildman: It is interesting. I have very little respect for Premier Vander Zalm, but I will say this for him: If he believes in free trade, he says so, unlike the Premier (Mr Peterson), who believes in free trade and pretends he does not.

I remember a famous speech not long before the election where the Premier set out six conditions which he said had to be met and if they were not met there would be no deal. I think the phrase he used was, “The bottom line is there will be no deal.” You and I know, Mr Speaker, and all the members of the House know, that not one of those six conditions was met, and yet we still have a deal.

Certainly the Premier was not the one negotiating the deal. The federal government and the Prime Minister were, and his colleague the Minister for International Trade at the federal level.

Mr Haggerty: Where was your party in Ottawa on it?

Mr Wildman: To be fair, the federal Liberal Party and the federal New Democratic Party fought against the free trade deal in an election campaign. But we had a Premier in Ontario who said at one point he had a veto. He said he could exercise that veto. Then he backed off. He said maybe he did not have a veto, and even if he did have the veto he was not going to exercise it because he said something to the effect that he did not want to balkanize the economy of the country. He did not want to disrupt the situation because, after all, the federal government had the main responsibility for international trade.

I never thought I would be brought by my opponents across the way in this House to the point of actually having to give some praise to Bill Vander Zalm. But this resolution is so insulting to the grape growers that it is not as good as Bill Vander Zalm’s program for the grape growers in his province.

At one point the member for St Catharines-Brock said it was unfair or silly to have a situation where a person could drink all afternoon in a tavern and then pay by a credit card. I hope the member was not advocating that, that people should drink all afternoon in taverns and then pay by credit card, because if that is what he is suggesting, he is going to bring all kinds of social problems into this jurisdiction.

To suggest that people should drink all afternoon in taverns and then be able to pay by credit card is to indicate his lack of understanding of the problems of family violence and so on that result from alcoholism and his inability to deal with the fact that people do indeed drink all afternoon, unfortunately. Is the suggestion that these kinds of people who do unfortunately spend all afternoon in taverns and who can have and do get credit cards from banks should therefore be able to buy booze on credit? Should we be expanding that kind of situation or should we be trying to curtail it? Do we really want more people to drink all afternoon in taverns and then to be able to pay by credit?

Mr Dietsch: You’re twisting the words, and you know it. That’s disgusting.

Mr Wildman: It is most disgusting. What is more disgusting than that is the fact that this member, on behalf of the grape growers and the wineries in his area, is not getting up in this House and criticizing this government for not providing adequate assistance to the grape growers to ensure that the grape growers who have to get out of the industry, unfortunately, are getting the assistance they need.

A large number of grape growers are not eligible even for the inadequate assistance being provided because they got into the industry at the wrong time. It is unfortunate, but there are a significant number of people who bought vine-yards not long before the negotiation of the free trade agreement and the GATT rulings who, because of when they purchased, are not eligible for the assistance program to help them get into other types of agriculture. Why is the member not getting up and defending those people instead of advocating credit cards for people who drink?

The member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr R. F. Nixon), the Treasurer of this province, is well known for advocating what he calls fiscal responsibility. He always shows fiscal responsibility. I think it is rather strange that the member for St Catharines-Brock, who is not criticizing this government for not providing adequate assistance to the wine industry and to grape growers in Niagara, at the same time is going against the concept of fiscal responsibility that is advocated by his government.

Surely one of the most important aspects of fiscal responsibility is to pay as you go, to ensure that you have the resources to pay for the services and the goods you are purchasing.

Mr Miller: Good principle.

Mr Wildman: The member for Norfolk (Mr Miller) says it is a good principle. Perhaps he could persuade his colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock that we should not be advocating the purchase of booze on credit but we should be paying as we go, that members of the public should be fiscally responsible.

Mr Miller: You’re wrong. A credit card is used as money.

Mr Wildman: A credit card is used as money? That is true in our society. Credit cards are used widely. The fact that we run our economy so much on credit, to me, does not persuade me that we should be expanding this situation, particularly a party that advocates fiscal responsibility.

Mr Haggerty: How many cards have you got?

Mr Wildman: How many do I have? I have three credit cards. I must admit that of those three, I use only one, the gasoline credit card, regularly. The others I do not.

Mr Haggerty: For emergencies?

Mr Wildman: Yes, I have them for emergencies. But I would not include among so-called emergencies the purchase of a bottle of wine. I really would not consider that an emergency. I do enjoy wine with dinner, often, but I always believe that it makes sense to purchase that with the folding money that I have in my wallet; if I do not have that folding money, then I do not purchase the bottle of wine.

I think we should be doing all we can to assist the wine industry in Ontario to deal with the free trade and GATT rulings. I think the government should be bringing forward a comprehensive policy of assistance to the wineries. I suppose this is sort of an ineffectual, not too harmful resolution, not one that people should get upset about; but it is certainly not one that people in the wine industry should jump for joy about because it is not going to deal with their problems.

Mr Pollock: I am pleased to be able to take

part in this debate, and I can appreciate the member for St Catharines-Brock in bringing forth this resolution. I know it is a concern and it will be a promotion to an industry in his particular area.

I would not have any problems with this particular resolution if it had a top figure on it. What I mean by that is the fact that if you were in the tourist business and travelling in the Niagara area and you went into a winery to buy many cases of a particular kind of wine to take it back to your area, say it be the Muskokas, Peterborough, Haliburton or North Hastings, I would not have any problem with that.

Unfortunately, the resolution does not say that. It has not got a top figure. It just mentions the purchase of wine in a winery or a wine outlet. I would have some major concerns with that. I do not believe in some ways we should discriminate. A wine outlet. I believe, would be like a little store in the hamlet of Stirling where liquor. wine and beer are sold. Would it not seem rather funny if you could walk into that store and purchase wine with a credit card, but you could not purchase beer or liquor with that credit card? People would start to get very confused, and I think it would be very confusing.

It would be kind of confusing to people coming in from the United States or some other country to run into this particular situation.

I am sure the member for St Catharines-Brock is concerned. He feels, and rightly so, that the wine industry is very important to the province; but so are other industries along that same line. For instance, I used to represent Thurlow township. Corbyville is in Thurlow township. It is a good corporate citizen -- leaving aside the effects that alcohol has on the general public -- it pays reasonably good wages, it does not pollute, and it also buys grain from local producers. As I say, it provides employment in that area, and I always felt that the people who worked at Corbyville appreciated having a job there and that particular industry contributed to the local economy.

If you are able to purchase wine by credit card, why could you not purchase distilled beverages such as alcohol too? I think we are getting into a field that maybe we should not be getting into as far as purchasing beer, wine or alcoholic beverages with credit cards is concerned. People tend to overspend especially when they use that plastic money, and that would be a concern of mine. I guess in that respect I would be voting against this resolution.

Mr Haggerty: I rise to speak in support of my colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock regarding his private member’s resolution, motion 31, to permit the use of credit cards by consumers for the purchase of bottled wines in winery retail stores and wineries in Ontario.

As members are aware, the international trade environment is becoming increasingly competitive. The United States and European Community have complained about the preferential marketing advantages provided to Ontario wines. The recent federal government trade agreement with the United States and GATT rulings have created adverse implications for the future of the Ontario grape and wine industry.

To comply with the provisions of GATT and the free trade agreement, Ontario began in 1989 to phase out the market differentials which currently give Ontario wines a competitive advantage. As well, a recent audit of LCBO cost of service for table wines indicated that LCBO markups on imported wines are not justified, resulting in lower markups, which make these imports more attractive to consumers.

I was fortunate enough to be on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs that went off to Europe a year ago, I believe last September, dealing with free trade and GAIT. At one of our dinner sessions we sat down with a group of people from the European Community and discussed some of the issues, particularly related to the wine problem in Ontario. One of the persons talked about a GATT decision at that time that brought about some of the difficulties we are facing now.

This person said, “We can travel from Brussels to the southern part of Italy, to Rome and that area, in eight hours.” I said: “That’s amazing, isn’t it? I cannot understand why GATT made the decision it did.” I said: “It’s just as well that you can have your wine exported to Canada, to Ontario and Toronto, by ship. If you want to have that market in the province of Ontario, you’re probably looking at about 1,500 miles by car, east to west and north to south. You could put I do not know how many Frances, Germanys and ltalys into Ontario. It would take you two days to travel across Ontario.” This puts a cost on to the marketing of foreign wines in Ontario.

The sale of Ontario wine products has been declining, and wine sales overall have declined by 11 per cent since last year, while shipments of US table wine to the LCBO have increased over 300 per cent in the first half of 1989 compared to 1988. A combination of increased import competition, higher grape prices and declining wine sales has put the wine industry in a difficult competitive position.

My colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock stated that while credit cards will not solve the competitive problem entirely, they would provide a level playing field and remove unfair competitive advantages presently in the marketplace. I think the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) missed that point.

Retail stores and wineries are likely to make large sales to tourists and other purchasers who have attended a winery tour or who may not have easy access to Ontario products. Otherwise, consumers do not carry large amounts of cash, particularly because they are used to the convenience and safety of using credit cards. The member for Algoma said he carries three; that indicates he does not carry too much cash with him. I can recall a few years ago a member of the Legislature was going to his room at the Royal York Hotel, and by the time he got up to his floor, he was stripped of his wallet.

Credit cards and Sunday openings at estate wineries could significantly boost the tourism potential of the industry. The resolution provides that retailers in the wine industry, and in particular in the cottage industry, the estate wineries, could move their products in fair competition, continuing the principle of responsible service and responsible use of beverage alcohol, allowing a choice and the convenience associated with the use of credit card purchases.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Sorbara) supports the use of credit cards in winery stores as one component of a policy which would give the industry a significant boost at a time when market forces and trade policies are making it more difficult to compete effectively.

The member for Algoma is quite correct. The industry is facing severe difficulties, especially the grape growers in the Niagara region. I am sure that even by adding this, opening the door a little bit further, it may secure the preservation of the industry and the farm lands in the Niagara region.

This policy is consistent with the Ontario government policy on the grape and wine competitive strategy. The minister is currently pursuing many strategies designed to help the wine industry adjust to the negative impacts associated with a freer trade environment. The use of credit cards at the winery retail stores should be perceived as a concrete action in this direction. Moving in this direction maintains a healthier marketing program for the grape growers in the Niagara region.

I support the member for St Catharines-Brock for putting forward the resolution. I think it is a step in the right direction. Anything now, pertaining to the grape industry and the grape growers in the Niagara region, will be of some assistance to them until they get through this trying stage at the present time.

I regret that the member for Algoma has been negative as usual in his approach to resolving some of these problems and hopefully -- he is the agricultural critic and he should come down and go through and look at what the cottage wineries are doing, the estate wineries, because if any one of them -- these will be the grape growers in the industry that will survive the free trade agreement.

Mr J. B. Nixon: I am honoured to rise to speak on this resolution put forward by the member for St Catharines-Brock. I apologize, I thought we were on the old rotation system, so here I am, ready to go. I want to congratulate him for bringing this motion because in a sense it is a motion whose time has come. It deals with a subject matter that I know is important to his constituency and indeed to the constituency of the entire grape-growing region in southern Ontario and, broadly speaking, important to the entire province of Ontario.

It is a very specific motion, but I have often felt that in government that is where you get things done. You focus on specific problems that require specific actions, and he has produced a specific remedy which will go a long way to solving a problem which has existed for some time in the Niagara region.

The industry he is dealing with is, broadly speaking, grape growing and our local wineries. Specifically, it is the estate wineries that he has targeted, but I want to suggest that we have to look at the estate wineries as being not just an isolated industry. They are an important element of our agricultural industry. They are an important part of our tourism industry. They diversify our economy in the sense that they diversify the number of agricultural products we produce.

It helps diversify our tourist industry by providing additional attractions to Ontario, and it diversifies our province in terms of its economic production by ensuring there is a regional industrial activity, a regional agricultural activity, a regional tourism activity, outside of the great metropolitan area of Toronto. I think it is important to remember that this province is much bigger than Metropolitan Toronto.

The problem that this industry has been facing, specifically the wineries and the estate wineries, is an assault over the last several years from the federal government in Ottawa. The free trade agreement directly attacked the ability of the estate wineries to continue functioning. The sales tax, this new GST, the gouge and screw tax, will attack directly the competitiveness of the estate wineries on a global scale.

I suggest that this is an industry which has long been supported by the province of Ontario and I give my friends in the Progressive Conservative Party provincially some credit for that, but lately they have been abandoned by the Conservative Party in Ottawa, and it has not been good for them.

What have we got, though? We have an industry which is recognized not only provincially, not only nationally, but internationally as producing some of the finest wines in the world. People from Ontario, from Canada and indeed North America will and do travel to the Niagara region to sample the wines, to purchase the wines, to share in the various attractions of the Niagara region -- not just the estate wineries. They go to the Shaw Festival. They come to see the countryside. There area number of reasons to go to the Niagara region and people do that because they find it an attractive area to visit whether it is for a day trip, for a week trip or a weekend or whatever.

It must be very, very frustrating I know -- from personal experience, and I have heard from others who have travelled from New York, from Michigan, from Pennsylvania, from southern and northern Ontario, from Quebec, wherever -- to visit a native estate winery in Ontario, something which we are all proud of, and to be told after having sampled the wines, “I am sorry. purchases are on the basis of cash only.” People are sort of saying, “Geez. when I go to New York state wineries, I do not have to pay cash, or when I go to buy wine in a store in New York state I do not have to pay cash.” So they are refused the opportunity to purchase the amount of wine they would like to buy.

It is as simple as that.

We are not saying to them, “You have to buy and drink it on the site.” No one is buying great volumes at the estate wineries in order to consume to excess. They are buying it because it is a good quality wine, because the wine is associated with the good experiences they have had visiting the Niagara tourist region, yet because we have sitting on the books an arcane regulation which says you cannot buy with credit cards, they are denied the opportunity not only to satisfy their own interest in our estate wineries, but they are denied the opportunity to contribute, in my view, to the Ontario economy, to the Niagara region. It just does not make sense.

I might also add that it has to be excessively frustrating to a visiting tourist or even someone from the Niagara region who wants to go to an estate winery and buy a couple of bottles of Château des Charmes or lnniskillin or any other of the great estate wineries on a Sunday and be told: “Sorry, you cannot buy a bottle of wine on Sunday and take it home and save it for the next Sunday dinner you might have with your family.

You cannot do that.” On the other hand, you could go over to Fort Erie and buy all the wine you wanted and bring it back, or you can go to a restaurant and drink all the wine you want and pay for it with a credit card. Somehow there is a perverse logic that says buying a very fine home-grown product from an estate winery on a Sunday or on any other day of the week with a credit card is unacceptable.

I think the time is overdue to change the rules. We have heard other speakers refer to the Ontario liquor licence advisory task force, as it was called, better known as the Offer report, which made recommendations in this regard. It said credit card purchases have come, their day has come. Purchasing a bottle of wine on Sunday at an estate winery -- you do not sit down and drink it there, you take it home and you use it judiciously when you want to. There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr D. R. Cooke: Judiciously or religiously.

Mr J. B. Nixon: Or religiously.

The time has come to fulfil the recommendations made by the Offer report. The parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas) is sitting here. I hope she takes the message back. The time has come to allow credit card purchases. I urge this assembly to consider allowing credit card purchases on Sunday of a bottle of wine. No one in Ontario finds that objectionable but for a few, and I suggest to those few, they do not have to buy a bottle of wine on Sunday, they do not have to buy a bottle of wine on Saturday or any other day of the week, by cash or by credit.

It is time to make a contribution to an essential part of our tourist and agricultural economy, and I urge all members of this assembly to support the resolution brought forward by the member for St Catharines-Brock.

Mr Runciman: I have not had a great deal of time to prepare for this, but one of the realities of being in an opposition with limited numbers is that you are wearing several hats, covering committees etc. In any event, I am here, unlike the humongous numbers in the government, where they can afford to send 13 members of their party to Italy, unprecedented, unheard of, on a so-called trade mission. We look at the taxpayers’ money being used to send 13 Liberal members to Italy --

Mrs Sullivan: Your party was asked.

Mr Runciman: Right. Where are those 13 Liberal MPPs? They are over in Italy. I will wager you, Mr Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr D. R. Cooke: Put your hat on.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There seems to have been a slight disturbance in the House away from the standing order that says one member at a time. The member for Leeds-Grenville, please.

Mr Runciman: It is regrettable. It is the same sort of situation as last night. When I just start to get warmed up with respect to an issue, the government interjections necessitate the Speaker intervening. It is regrettable, to say the least.

I wanted to make the point, before I was interrupted, with respect to the 13 Liberal members currently basking in the sun in Italy while the New Democrats and the Progressive Conservatives are working here in the Legislature of Ontario --

Ms Nicholas: Speak to the resolution.

Mr Runciman: I will wager you, Mr Speaker, that --

Mr Epp: What an attack on the Italian people of this province.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Ballinger: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought we were discussing ballot item 28. I do not think this is the opportunity to kick off a leadership campaign by the member for Leeds-Grenville.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his point of view. I also must remind the member for Leeds-Grenville that we are debating private member’s notice of motion 31.

Mr Runciman: Now, Mr Speaker, that was an appropriate comment and I was about to tie it in with the legislation before us.

Mr Faubert: What about Italian wine?

Mr Runciman: The member over there just made the point. I will wager that those 13 Liberals currently basking in the sun in Italy, while the NDP and Conservative members are struggling along on behalf of Ontario voters in this province, are not consuming Ontario wine. They are consuming Italian --

Mr Eakins: They tell me it is raining today.

The Speaker: Order. I do not think it is really proper parliamentary procedure for a member and the Speaker to wager on anything. So would you please continue with your remarks.

Mr Runciman: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I wanted to talk about a couple of things. The member for York Mills (Mr J. B. Nixon) made a couple of comments during his contribution that I think should be responded to. He said, in his view, that Ontario is bigger than Toronto. Certainly we on this side of the House agree with that, but that is a unique view coming from a member of the Liberal Party. Traditionally the Liberal Party has viewed Ontario from the CN Tower. With respect to all they can see from the CN Tower. that is Ontario on the part of this Liberal government. We can look at the neglect in eastern Ontario.

We can look at a whole range of areas with respect to the very limited view of this government with respect to what indeed encompasses Ontario.

He also made reference to taxes. He was criticizing the federal government about its treatment of the wine industry in this province. Then he talked about taxes. He talked about the goods and services tax. Any Liberal in this province being critical of the federal government -- I am not a supporter of the GST.

I have made that clear in the past, but for the Liberals to have the unmitigated gall to talk about taxes and be critical of the federal government when they have, as a government, increased taxes in this province over the last four years by 105 per cent -- that is the reality; they have the nerve to stand up in this House and talk about federal taxes -- they should get their own house in order first.

I am rather ambivalent about this question of credit card use in wine stores, but I think if the member really wanted to do something meaningful with respect to assisting the wine industry in this province, and I have suggested this to him in the past, rather than deal with a resolution of this kind, which I do not think is really going to have that kind of a significant impact on the industry, I think he should have been looking at the question of private wine stores in this province. I have been a strong supporter of that for many years.

Now what we have currently -- he may argue we have private wine stores, but in essence what we have is wine stores operated by the wineries, the wine companies themselves.

If the member for Algoma wanted to start a wine store in his particular community he would be forbidden from doing so. He would have to do it under licence through one of the wineries. It seems to me that is the sort of thing that would provide more retail opportunities right across this province for the Ontario wine industry, and certainly greater opportunities, greater selection and perhaps some pricing advantages as well, for the consumers of this province. That is the sort of bigger picture, in my view, that the member should be looking at.

I respect his concerns for the area he represents, but I think that perhaps rather than dealing with an issue like credit card use that he should be perhaps looking at the bigger picture in more meaningful ways over the long haul to help the industry.

It is sort of ironic in respect to this credit card issue that he is talking about perhaps -- I gather earlier in his comments. I was not here – about why should someone be able to sit in a tavern all day and drink beer and then at the end of the day pay by credit card when they cannot go into a wine store and use a credit card.

That is ironic to say the least when we have this government continually mouthing platitudes about having an impact on reducing drinking and driving in this province, and here we have the member standing up and saying, “Why can Joe go into a tavern and drink all day and pay with a credit card and I can’t do the same thing for a bottle of muscatel?” I want to question the thinking of that particular member in respect to that in trying to be consistent with what his government says is its policy in respect to drinking and driving and reducing consumption.

I also want to talk about another irony, another bit of hypocrisy in respect to this government and its so-called liberalization of liquor laws in this province. We will talk about their promise in 1985 Of beer and wine in grocery stores, another one of the Premier’s infamous ad hoc, ill-thought-out promises to the people of this province that he could not keep, perhaps did not want to keep. We have had the ruse passed here in 1986, I guess it was, where they put a bill before the House in a minority situation knowing full well that it would be defeated.

Since 1987 they have had a record majority in the Legislature of Ontario, 95 seats -- now 94. Have we seen the introduction of this beer and wine legislation since they have been elected in 1987? Do we hear any talk of reintroduction of this legislation? Not a murmur. In fact, when the former minister, who is now the Minister of Transportation (Mr Wrye), was asked specifically about that legislation, he said: “No, it is not on the agenda. We don’t have any intentions to reintroduce that kind of legislation.”

So when the member for York Mills and others talk about liberalization of the liquor laws of this province and how concerned they are about the tourism dollar and having an impact on small business etc. it is a sham. It is like so many other things that have occurred with this government over the past four or five years -- a lot of hot air and very little substance to most of the proposals that come before them.

I want to talk about liberalization. I was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for a brief period of time, but during that period of time we looked at a couple of issues where we were moving in that area, certainly a review of liquor regulations. We also brought in the legalization of brewpubs in this province, and were looking at the legalization of distribution for microbreweries as well.

Of course, what happened after I made the announcement as minister in respect to brewpubs, five months later I think it was, or something like that, the minister of the day, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology stood up and announced that the Liberal government was legalizing brewpubs in this province. What a bunch of hot air. We saw that sort of thing occurring in every ministry across the government where the initiative had been undertaken by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario followed by the attempt to retake the credit, if members will, by the incoming Liberal government.

So we can detail this on and on for hours in terms of hypocrisy in respect to a whole range of issues across government. Auto insurance is certainly the most prominent one facing us today, but the liberalization of liquor legislation, in contradiction of their so-called efforts to control drinking, really is difficult to swallow.

I have a great deal of respect for the member who has put this legislation forward today, but we are having a free vote in our caucus and I am not sure how the vote will go in respect to the members. Some of us have strong feelings; I do not. I think perhaps the member in future opportunities for private member’s legislation should be dealing with initiatives that are going to have a much more positive, significant impact on the wine industry in Ontario. All of us would support that.

Mr Dietsch: I want to say that I am absolutely appalled at the disgusting way that people who are supposed to be representing the agricultural industry are acting in this House. I very distinctly said that this was not the complete answer, that in fact it was a step in the right direction and to try to twist my words to say that I support people sitting in the pub all day, nothing could be further from the truth.

I am absolutely surprised from a person who wants to run for leadership, who wants to wager with you, Mr Speaker, then stands up and says that he will not support something that is the right step to go through in this procedure and that will be an initiative that will help. I think it is absolutely disgusting.

I feel that they will by the use of credit cards be able to play a very important innovative approach. There are tourists. There are business people who go to Niagara-on-the-Lake for seminars, training courses. If these are the people to whom the opposition members want to deny that privilege, that is what they have said to me.

I believe in promoting Ontario. I believe in promoting Ontario products, whether it is wine in Niagara, whether it is steel in Sault Ste Marie or whether it is whatever with my friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr Wiseman). I believe that we have got to promote Ontario better than we are doing. We cannot do it in the divisive way with which individuals want to further play to the audience.

I want to say that this government perhaps would be in favour of striking a task force to look --

The Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time has expired. That completes the allotted time for debate on the two designated items for this morning.

PURCHASE OF WINE BY CREDIT CARDS

The Speaker: Mr Dietsch has moved resolution 31.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

The House divided on Mr McCague’s motion of resolution 25, which was negatived on the following vote:

AYES

Bryden, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Eves, Grier, Harris, Laughren, Martel, McCague, McLean, Morin-Strom, Nixon, J. B., Philip, E., Pollock, Runciman, Smith, D. W., Sterling, Sullivan, Wildman.

NAYS

Adams, Ballinger, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Cooke. D. R., Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Furlong, Keyes, Kozyra, LeBourdais, Mahoney, McClelland, McGuigan, Miller, Nicholas, Oddie Munro, Patten, Poole. Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Sola, Tatham, Velshi.

Ayes 32; nays 19.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: The battle to win compensation benefits for gold miners with lung cancer was a long and tough one. For some 12 years, the United Steelworkers of America, the New Democratic Party and the widows themselves fought to have the Workers’ Compensation Board recognize the relationship between the cancer and gold mining. When the board finally agreed to compensation in 1987, the criteria to qualify for benefits was then made terribly restrictive. Factors such as age and the year when the gold miner began to work in the mines are used in a mean-spirited way to deny entitlement. More claimants have been denied benefits than have actually received compensation.

Then the WCB went one step further to make the process even more unfair. It first decided that if benefits were granted and the miner were dead, the widow would only receive benefits back to the date of the death of her husband. The board refused to pay back to the time when the miner developed cancer and was unable to return to any type of work. In some cases, years elapsed between the illness and the death, yet there is no compensation for this.

Second, the board decided the benefits would go only to a worker or his dependants alive at the time of the policy change in 1987. The definition of dependant is key.” If the worker and his wife died before the policy change, the children would not be considered dependants and would not receive any benefits at all, this in spite of the fact that their father died of an industrial disease.

It seems tome that the widows and the children have suffered long enough. This situation must be rectified by this government.

RENAL DIALYSIS

Mr Pollock: I read with interest on Tuesday an

article in the Globe and Mail stating that Oshawa would be receiving a six-station kidney dialysis unit. Oshawa certainly will be a lot closer than downtown Toronto for people from my riding and the Peterborough area to go to receive this service.

However, I certainly believe that one of the hospitals in Peterborough would have been a more central part of eastern Ontario in which to place a dialysis unit. There will still be people who will have to travel 200 kilometres to get to Oshawa. I recall John Turner, the former member for Peterborough, presenting a resolution to this Legislature asking for a dialysis unit for Peterborough. I spoke in favour of this resolution.

The fact that people have to travel long distances and, in some cases, three times a week, is an inconvenience and a tremendous expense. I hope that some day soon there will be a dialysis unit in Peterborough.

MARY ANN BRETT

Mr J. B. Nixon: I rise today to pay tribute to Mary Ann Brett, who resides in the provincial riding of York Mills. Ms Brett is one of 12 Ontarians who will receive tomorrow a Community Action Award from the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Ms Collins).

Mary Ann Brett is the author of a weekly column in the Toronto Star under her byline. The column expands awareness and creates understanding of issues important to people with disabilities. A wheelchair user herself, Ms Brett has been an active citizen since her youth. She graduated from high school in Hamilton in the days before buildings were equipped or designed for wheelchair access. After her marriage, she adopted several children with disabilities and in recent years has been raising her children, now teenagers, on her own.

A brief review of some of her recent columns will, I am sure, illustrate why Ms Brett is receiving and is so deserving of this award. She deals with matters which are important not just to the disabled community but to all of our society, which needs to be educated, informed and, from time to time, gently chastised on the issues as they relate to the disabled community. All readers of the Toronto Star have learned much from Ms Brett’s column. Ms Brett has given much to the people of the province of Ontario, both as an individual and as a writer, and she is most deserving of the minister’s Community Action Award.

UNIVERSITY FINANCING

Mr R. F. Johnston: The Council of Ontario Universities has just released one of its fall briefing notes that it puts out each year on the financial Situation facing the universities in the province, which have already been reeling through underfunding and the real problems of maintaining the standards of quality of education that we expect here in Ontario.

This latest report is perhaps the most startling and most concerning to us. The bottom line is that they forecast the universities will require an increase of 9.7 per cent in income from the provincial government this year just in order to hold their own. It indicates, for instance, that this last year when they received a four per cent increase on their base funding, they had to do this in facing a 5.8 per cent increase in the cost of living, which basically gave them a shortfall of $28 million. This ate into the supposed extra money they were receiving by access by over 50 per cent.

They have gone through a list of various kinds of programs that are being foisted on them by this government and by the federal government in terms of the pay equity legislation, the health levy, unemployment insurance changes, etc. Adding those things up, just to hold their own, not to lose ground, they will need a 9.7 per cent increase.

I am afraid we are not going to see anything like that from the provincial government. Therefore, our universities again will fall further behind than they have in the past, and they are already near the bottom of the heap in terms of government funding across the nation.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr McLean: I would like to address the failure of the Liberal government following its grand presentation of the recommendations of the Black Task Force on Illegal Drug Use in Ontario.

Over a year ago, the follow-up on this was the introduction of a co-ordinator of drug strategy. In particular, the Ministry of the Solicitor General has failed to increase the size of the OPP drug squad. It still remains at the same level as a year ago, and yet the number of officers pursuing traffic violations has increased.

The contribution of the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) to fulfilling the requirements of the task force has been to write a letter to district health councils asking that they examine the situation. Yet to date, the ministry has not acted to help drug addicts in any tangible manner.

A month ago, the part-time minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy (Mr Black) told this House that approximately half of the recommendations of his report are currently in the process of being implemented and alluded to a co-ordinating secretariat. I have not seen that secretariat and I do not think one has been founded.

It is my deep concern that this government has little real concern with the problem of drug abuse in this province. They have appointed a pan-time minister to deal with what is most certainly a full-time issue. They have had the recommendations of the minister’s task force for over a year now, yet have done little work of any consequence in meeting the important recommendations of the task force.

Next week is Drug Awareness Week, and I urge this minister to make an announcement today on a major drug strategy.

VANIER CUP

Mr Reycraft: This Saturday, the country’s two best university football teams will meet on the country’s best Astroturf. This weekend, the University of Western Ontario Mustangs and the Saskatchewan Huskies square off for the Vanier Cup here in Toronto at the SkyDome.

The Western Mustangs advanced to the championship after beating out the St Mary’s Huskies 38-3 3 in last Saturday’s Atlantic Bowl in Halifax. This was no small feat, as the Huskies were Canada’s number one ranked university football team. This match promises to be an exciting one between two deserving and well-matched teams.

This is the first trip for the Saskatchewan Huskies to the Canadian finals. They defeated Queen’s Golden Gaels 40-10 in the Churchill Bowl in Saskatoon last Saturday.

Our Mustangs are no strangers to the Vanier Cup. They won it four times in the 1970s and have made four other appearances since 1977.

Congratulations go out to Mustangs coach Larry Haylor, Saskatchewan coach Brian Towriss and, of course, to all the players for having advanced to the Canadian university football championships.

I know that all members of the House will want to join me in wishing the Mustangs good luck as they battle to bring the Vanier Cup back to Ontario.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Eves: I would like to address my comments today to the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) on the still pressing issue, unfortunately, of northern health travel grants for the residents of the district of Parry Sound and those in the district of Nipissing, which lies south of Algonquin Park and, in fact, in Algonquin Park.

It was 9 June 1988 when the Premier (Mr Peterson) rose in the House and said that effective 1 April 1989, the residents of Parry Sound riding, which includes the districts of Parry Sound and Nipissing district east of North Bay, would be included for all government programs by all ministries in northern Ontario.

We have written to the Minister of Health on numerous occasions requesting that she change the regulations which define what are and are not eligible under the northern health travel grant program. She has consistently told us that the program is under review. I fail to see how the program could still be under review when she was told by her Premier on 9 June 1988 that effective 1 April 1989 this was to happen.

As a matter of fact, officials at the OHIP office in Kingston, since 1 April of this year, have received literally hundreds of applications to process northern health travel grants for residents in my riding because they too assumed that this would happen. They are waiting for direction from the minister to do what the Premier told her to do over a year ago.

OXFORD ENERGY CO

Mr Tatham: Burning rubber gets the okay. Oxford Energy Co. New York City, has received final approval to build what will be the world’s largest tire-to-energy plant.

The Exeter energy project, a $100-million, 30-megawatt plant at Sterling, Connecticut, which is expected to take two years to build, will burn about 10 million tires a year. The plant will be connected to aboveground lines by the nation’s longest underground power transmission line, an eight-mile long, 115-kilovolt line. It took Oxford more than three years to win final permits for air quality, solid waste and water discharge for the plant.

Phil Rettger, Oxford vice-president, said the project addresses New England’s rapidly growing junk tire problem. The region generates 20 million junk tires each year. All the tires will come from within 250 miles of the site.

Oxford Tire Supply Co, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oxford Energy Co, will deliver tires to the site, and other waste tire collectors and haulers in the region will keep the plant in fuel. Between 20 and 30 tractor-trailer trucks, with a capacity of up to 1,400 tires apiece, will supply the Exeter plant daily.

The tires will move from fuel-feed hoppers spaced and in single file to conveyers. They will then be weighed and fed into the boiler, where they will burn completely at temperatures in excess of 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Rettger said one of the advantages of the Sterling plant is that the tires will not have to be shredded before being burned. Shredding can add $25 to $40 a ton to the cost of tire disposal.

Mr Villeneuve: Pretty hot stuff.

Mr McGuigan: A real blowout.

The Speaker: Order.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RACE RELATIONS AND POLICING

Hon Mr Offer: I am today announcing the government’s response to the report of the Task Force on Race Relations and Policing.

I wish to thank Clare Lewis, chairman of the task force, and its members: Dr Ralph Agard, Kamala-Jean Gopie, Chief James Harding, T. SherSingh and Roy Williams, for their important work. Their commitment, dedication and effort to the task at hand is to be commended. I also wish to express my sincere thanks to all of those who contributed to the work of the task force through their thoughtful and compassionate presentations.

In addition, I want to commend the excellent initiatives undertaken in this regard by the member for London South (Mrs E. J. Smith), whose contributions have been instrumental in advancing positive police-community relations in this province.

The task force was asked to address “the very serious concerns of visible minorities respecting the interaction of the police community with their own.

Today, I am pleased to advise the House that this government accepts the fundamental principles underlying the recommendations of the task force report. In fact, we are acting upon the great majority of the recommendations, including the establishment of a special investigative unit, limits on the use of force by police and comprehensive measures in employment equity, police-community relations, training and recruitment.

As members will recall, the task force recommended the establishment of a special investigative unit to investigate police shootings. The task force recommended that the unit be composed of seconded police officers from a number of forces, together with a civilian component. The government not only accepts this recommendation, we wish to go beyond it. We will establish a permanent unit of trained investigators within the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Members will also be aware that the task force a recommended that investigations by this unit be limited to police shootings. We will go beyond this by directing the unit to investigate incidents of any actions involving police which result in death or serious injury. In keeping with the principle of this recommendation, investigations by this unit will be overseen by a civilian well-versed in criminal law, who will have the stature and knowledge required to carry out this function.

This government recognizes that the elimination of systemic barriers to employment, improved training and community-based service are all essential requirements for the further advancement of effective and sensitive policing in the Ontario of the 1990s and beyond.

A central recommendation of the task force was to implement a legislated, mandatory employment equity program for police services. This government will bring forward a legislated mandatory employment equity program for all police services. In furtherance of the task force recommendation, initial measures will be taken for visible minority men and women. Police services will be required to prepare and submit employment equity plans as mandated by legislation. These plans will be made in accordance with established goals and timetables.

All such employment equity plans will receive careful monitoring and ongoing review. As well, every effort will be made to build upon the recruitment and minority employment measures which have already been undertaken by many police services across the province. I believe the monitoring function is critical to ensure the success of an employment equity plan. The government, through my ministry, will undertake this responsibility.

Existing police employment equity and community outreach initiatives will be intensified to increase recruitment from underrepresented groups. It is my intention that the ministry itself will play an active role in facilitating such recruitment in accordance with the task force report recommendations.

The task force recommended the establishment of a central recruiting unit. A central recruiting unit will be established within the policing services division of my ministry. The objective of this central recruiting unit will be to provide assistance to all police services in their recruitment efforts, with special emphasis on visible minority officers. This unit will also develop, in consultation with police management, bias-free recruitment, testing, selection instruments and processes. This initiative will assist all police services in their efforts to eliminate systemic barriers to employment.

As also recommended by the task force, I am pleased to announce a series of initiatives in police training which are intended to build upon the progress already made in this area in recent years.

First, my ministry will undertake an immediate review of all current police training programs in order to design and introduce significant program improvements.

Second, a mandatory four-week retraining program for police officers will be established and earned out through innovative and cost-efficient means. Some 2,000 OPP and municipal police officers will receive this training annually, which will include race relations, the law and contemporary policing skills. Additional training initiatives will involve a train-the-trainers program for police trainers; an intensified coach-officer course and a series of se