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

December 3, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L017 - Thu 3 Dec 1987 / Jeu 3 dec 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

TOURISM ADVISORY BOARD ACT

HERITAGE BUILDING FUND

TOURISM ADVISORY BOARD ACT

HERITAGE BUILDING FUND

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES

ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH BRAIN INJURIES

CHILEAN WINES

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

SIMCOE CHRISTMAS PANORAMA

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TECHNOLOGY FUND

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

COURT FACILITIES

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

RESPONSES

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

TECHNOLOGY FUND

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

COURT FACILITIES

TECHNOLOGY FUND

COURT FACILITIES

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

TECHNOLOGY FUND

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CHILD CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CHILEAN WINES

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

SALES TAX

CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

HOURS OF WORK

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

CHILD CARE

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

RED MEAT INDUSTRY

STEEP ROCK RESOURCES INC.

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

UPHOLSTERED AND STUFFED ARTICLES AMENDMENT ACT

OPERATING ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT

OSHAWA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

GENERAL HOSPITAL OF PORT ARTHUR ACT

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDER OF QUESTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT (CONTINUED)

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

TOURISM ADVISORY BOARD ACT

Mr. McLean moved second reading of Bill 24,

An Act to establish a Tourism Advisory Board.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to advise you, sir, that you have 20 minutes and you may reserve any amount of that time afterwards for windup.

Mr. McLean:

An Act to establish a Tourism Advisory Board:

“1. In this act, ‘board’ means the Tourism Advisory Board established under

section 2; ‘prescribed’ means prescribed by regulations.

“2. There is hereby established a board to be known as the Tourism Advisory Board.

“3. The board is composed of not less than 12 members representing industry, labour and government in the prescribed proportion.

“4. The members of the board shall be appointed in the prescribed manner and serve for the prescribed term of office.

“5. The board shall serve as a permanent advisory body to the government on matters concerning tourism and hospitality in the province. “

Just by way of introduction, I wanted to read that into the record so that people will be aware of some of the terms of reference.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about Bill 24,

An Act to establish a Tourism Advisory Board in Ontario. Under Bill 24, which received first reading in this Legislature on November 18, I am recommending the Tourism Advisory Board be set up with at least 12 members representing a cross-section of industry, labour and government. This would be a permanent advisory body to the government on matters concerning and related to the tourism and hospitality industry in this province.

It is quite clear to me that the Ontario tourism and hospitality industry can generate unparalleled economic and employment opportunities, substantially reduce our provincial travel deficit and attract our rightful share of world travel and tourism revenues. To do that, the industry relies heavily on the provincial government through the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to generate creative, innovative and sensible public policies and financial stimuli.

In order to do this job effectively and efficiently, this government should and must rely on input from the experts. In this case, those experts can be found in the tourism and hospitality industry itself. According to Statistics Canada, in a comprehensive paper titled Ontario Study of the Service Sector which was released in 1986, the service sector in which the tourism and hospitality industry was the leading mainstay now accounts for 73 per cent of employment, 70.2 per cent of gross domestic product and an estimated 80 per cent of all new jobs that will be created in the next decade.

However, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation lacks the human and financial resources to adequately serve the needs of the tourism and hospitality industry. By establishing the Tourism Advisory Board, the ministry would be in a better position to ensure that this industry remains vital by relying on suggestions from experts in the field.

We were all grateful to hear recently that visits to Ontario by overseas travellers rose 30 per cent this year. Approximately 839,000 overseas tourists visited Ontario between January and July of this year compared with 646,000 during the same period in 1986. That increase followed closely on the heels of a 24 per cent rise in overseas visitors to Ontario in 1986 over 1985.

This certainly proves to me that Ontario is considered to be a great place to visit, with its many first-class, world-class attractions. More tourists from south of the border are discovering Ontario. Approximately 14.5 million Americans visited our province during the first seven months of this year compared with 13.8 million during the same period in 1986, which is an increase of 3.5 per cent. I am sure they are not coming here to buy cheaper gas.

Granted, many of the increased visits to Ontario are due in part to strengthening overseas currencies and economies. Much of it is also due to provincial government promotional campaigns featuring Ontario as an ideal place for tourism. I would hope and expect that these promotions will continue, but I fear that we will not be able to expect 20 or 30 per cent increases in the number of visitors to Ontario if we do not look for input from the tourism and hospitality industry.

For an industry as vital to this province’s economy as tourism, this government should rely on the services of the Tourism Advisory Board, which could be used in a variety of ways, including researching, marketing and developing this environmentally clean and renewable resource.

It could very well come up with innovative and creative methods for working with all the government ministries in developing programs and policies aimed at strengthening and expanding the tourism and hospitality industry. The tourism industry is subjected to a growing number of legislative provincial acts, regulations, controls, taxes, licences, levies, fees, tariffs and assessments, some of which discourage investment and enterprise and some of which are counterproductive.

This is another area the Tourism Advisory Board could look into and recommend which measures could be dropped, which could be combined and which should be maintained. The Tourism Advisory Board would not come up with silly or trivial ideas because its membership would include representatives from the industry and they would not put forward recommendations that would end up hurting themselves.

The members can be assured that this board’s activities would be monitored right from the very first day it is established because my bill recommends that its membership include government representatives. It is clear that effective tourism policy can only be developed with increased private sector involvement. This industry is on the front lines and its experts should be called upon to help government develop an effective tourism policy.

What else could the Tourism Advisory Board do for the tourism and hospitality industry? We all recognize the need to take some immediate short-term actions to halt the erosion of foreign market share that is currently taking place. The Tourism Advisory Board could take an in-depth look at the industry to see what things could be done right now in developing and promoting Ontario and identifying areas of opportunity with strong potential for future growth.

The Tourism Advisory Board would provide the provincial government with firsthand accounts and information on what the people in the industry felt, what they see as problems and where they see opportunities, big or small, for improving the picture of the tourism sector. This board could review and recommend new policies and programs for improved rest stops and travel information centres to enhance highway travel in Ontario and it would ensure that our tourism and hospitality associations have their views adequately reflected. We need a long-term tourism strategy for this province.

In the area of how the Tourism Advisory Board could work with other government ministries to benefit the tourism and hospitality industry, we could look at the Ministry of Natural Resources. All provincial natural resources including land, mining, forestry, water, fish and wildlife management, and assessment and planning programs must recognize the important and productive role the Ontario tourism industry plays as a vital partner in these processes. After all, if we have spoiled or depleted natural resources, then it logically follows that we will have reduced tourism. No natural resources means no tourism; it is as simple as that.

The Tourism Advisory Board may think of natural resources that need protection, maybe even before they come to the attention of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Tourism is where many of our natural resources are. They are in our tourism operators’ backyards and they are certainly familiar with what is found in their own backyards.

These are only a few of the areas where I believe the Tourism Advisory Board could play a vital role. We would get input from industry, labour and government. What a team that makes. They would be working for a common goal. A strong, healthy and viable tourism and hospitality industry in this province of Ontario, working with both industry and labour along with input from the government, deserves to be heard when it comes to the direction of millions of dollars in government funds for the tourism and hospitality industry.

This new partnership could reflect in a truly effective marketing program to encourage domestic trade as well as continuing to promote Ontario in the international marketplace. This new partnership could develop incentives that will create jobs in the service industry through the development of new and innovative tourist attractions. This new partnership could lead to measures that eliminate, where possible, provincial government policies, rules and regulations that inhibit the development of the tourism industry.

By establishing the Tourism Advisory Board, the members of this Legislature would be reaffirming our substantial commitment to tourism and hospitality, and more important, our recognition that the real answers for long-term growth, development and success can only come from the tourism sector itself, from people who work in and operate the tourism and hospitality industry.

There cannot be sufficient focus on the value and importance of the tourism and hospitality industry in Ontario. It is the province’s largest employer, the third-largest provincial industry and the second-largest provincial earner of valuable foreign exchange. More full-time and part-time professional employment is being created by the Ontario tourism and hospitality industry than by any other sector of the provincial economy.

Tourism Ontario, which is a nonprofit federation of hospitality and travel associations, strongly favours the establishment of any officially recognized senior advisory body of the Ontario government that is prepared to seriously consider and address the needs of our vital industry.

In the area of Simcoe county, we have the Huronia Tourist Association, the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association and the chambers of commerce in the city of Orillia and in the town of Midland that work with the municipalities to attract tourism.

There was some talk some time ago that there was an idea of a Premier’s council on tourism. This advisory board for which I am asking the members’ approval today is on the same lines as what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had initiated and which was talked about earlier on.

Tourism in Simcoe county is a very large resource, a substantial income. When we look at the advisory board, it could be looking at such things as farm holiday packages. When we get a group of people from different walks of life involved in an advisory board, they can bring a lot of new ideas. They can bring them to the ministry for their input, to be acted on.

It was not long ago that there was a debate in this Legislature on Bill 38 with regard to lotteries. Some 400 municipalities organized and supported a campaign to have Bill 38 withdrawn. It is important that there are people involved within the community who really get involved in the tourism industry.

What I am saying today is that second reading of this bill is very important for tourism in the whole province of Ontario. I indicated earlier some of the figures on the number of people we have visiting Ontario. We have to sell. We have to be involved. We have to have a group of people that is doing just that.

In closing, I would like to say that I am fully confident that with the help and support of the members of this Legislature in passing Bill 24, which establishes the Tourism Advisory Board, we can help create a strong, mature and broadly based tourism and hospitality industry that is fully responsive to the needs and demands of the expanding world tourism market.

At this point, I will save the remaining time allotted to me for the end of this debate.

Mr. Wildman: I want, at the outset, to congratulate the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) for bringing this bill before the House. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the other members of the assembly that my colleagues are all out at this time consulting with the tourist industry about this bill and hopefully we will be of one mind when it comes to the vote on the legislation.

I am happy to be able to participate. I want to indicate that I will support this private member’s bill. I think it should be obvious to all of us that the government does in fact need advice on how to promote tourism in this province. Tourism is, as the member for Simcoe East indicated, one of the largest industries and the largest employer in this province. It would be very helpful to have a representative board that could represent various parts of the tourist industry, labour and government that could give advice to the government.

In this province the tourist industry seems to suffer from a rather strange kind of schizophrenia. On the one hand, we have the accommodation industry in the urban centres that would like to promote Ontario as a sophisticated, modern, urbane community that can provide culture and the arts as well as sporting activities and other tourist attractions. On the other hand, we have in rural, small town Ontario an emphasis on outdoor recreation as the attraction for tourism.

In the north, of course, we have emphasized in the past the wilderness experience as a way of attracting tourists to our part of the province. In fact, in northern Ontario, tourism is really one more resource-based industry. It is based on the forests, the lakes, the fish and wildlife that we have or have had in abundance in northern Ontario. We face some serious problems in that those resources are fast being depleted.

Whether it be because of pollution, acid rain or just the exploitation of the resources, tourism faces a very serious problem of how to adjust to a new circumstance of the dwindling of our wilderness. At the same time, the tourist industry seems to be attempting to attract more and more visitors from outside of Canada, not just from the United States but also from Europe and Japan.

Certainly, the wilderness experience is something that seems to sell very well and has a great potential in Europe. In that continent, many of the people are very crowded together and do not have the opportunity to experience the great outdoors in the way that we do in North America. But, as I say, at the same time those resources are dwindling. I think it is something that must be studied, and the government certainly needs some advice on how to adjust in the tourist field and to promote Ontario to attract visitors and foreign capital.

One of the major problems that faces tourism in northern Ontario is the exploitation of our forestry resource. The timber companies are building more and more forest access roads throughout the wilderness. They are having to go farther and farther afield to cut timber, and that is making it very difficult for the tourist industry -- the outfitters who have been dependent on a fly-in operation, outpost operations for fishing. It is making these lakes more and more accessible to the general public so that many lakes that were never fished heavily before are now experiencing a serious amount of pressure and the fishing is not what it used to be.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has a very difficult task in balancing the various demands of competing groups. The forest industry wants access to the timber; the tourist industry wants to protect isolated lakes; of course, the general public -- the sports fishermen from other parts of Ontario and from our own area, and the recreationists -- wants access to those lakes; and the conservationists and environmentalists would like to protect them as well.

It is very difficult to balance all of those demands and to properly manage the resource for the benefit of all those competing groups. Perhaps a tourism committee, such as is proposed in the legislation, could help in this regard. I must say though, I am not sure if the member for Simcoe East is aware that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is currently developing a tourism strategy for Ontario which is, I understand, going to be completed in February and published in February.

One of the proposals that has been made by the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association to the ministry in that regard is for something that they called tourism management agreements, which are patterned after forestry management agreements. It seems the tourist industry is proposing that it be given control over areas, in terms of access.

I want to say that while I am very much in support of tourism and the need to promote our area, protect the industry and to develop that industry, I am very much opposed to this kind of feudal control of our crown resources that is being proposed. No one group, no one industry, owns our resources. They belong to the people of this province, and the Ministry of Natural Resources or the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation cannot shuck off the responsibility to a private industry to manage those resources; so I would be very much opposed to the ministry agreeing to this proposal for tourism management agreements.

I must say there are a number of other things that the government should be doing and that this board could advise on to assist the tourist industry. Number one, I think, is doing something about the crisis in liability insurance. In my area, a tourism attraction, a water slide, that was doing a very good business has been put out of business recently because of the exorbitant demands of the insurance industry for premiums that would cover it for liability. I think that is a serious problem.

Also, as has been mentioned, the gasoline prices we have in northern Ontario are certainly one of the things that make it difficult to attract more tourists from the United States. It is just unbelievable for the visitor from south of the border when he pulls up to a gas pump and finally is able to figure out the difference between metric and imperial measurement and the American gallon and how much it is costing him in Canadian dollars. That word-of-mouth description that is spread by that visitor when he returns home does not help tourism in northern Ontario.

We also have to improve our highway system in the north if we are going to be able to attract visitors who are travelling by automobile or camper. As the member for Simcoe East said, we have to improve the rest stops. I think it is most unfortunate that when a traveller from western Canada or from the western United States travels across the Manitoba border into Ontario, he or she suddenly feel as if they are returning to a bush road. Highway 17 is completely inadequate as a Trans Canada highway.

On top of that, the rest stops are so few and infrequent as to appear nonexistent in many parts of northern Ontario; and where they are they are in such poor condition that it is a disgrace really. When one compares the rest stops in northern Ontario and across Ontario to the kinds of rest stops that one sees in the Maritime provinces and Quebec for instance, I think we all should feel ashamed.

I support this proposed legislation, but I hope that we all recognize that it probably will not be a panacea. It will not resolve all the problems. What it will do is make it possible for there to be greater input from the industry and from various elements of the industry advising the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation on tourism policy.

In conclusion, I want to say that in itself will not resolve the problem of promoting and developing tourism in this province. First of all, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is not one of the major ministries of this government. The minister does not have a great deal of influence in the cabinet. Until the government as a whole, the Treasurer (Mr.

R. F. Nixon) and the Premier, the people who really make the decisions in the executive council, have a commitment to the development and promotion of tourism, the development of a board to advise the minister is not going to change anything. Certainly the proposal that the ministry is considering, to turn over the management of not only tourism but also the crown resources to the industry itself, I think is an abdication of its responsibility.

The government must take the responsibility to promote and develop tourism in this province and not leave it to the private sector alone, otherwise we will not be able to promote tourism as we should in this province.

Mr. Black: I am pleased that my friend, the member for Simcoe East, has proposed in a private member’s bill this particular piece of legislation. It does serve to focus attention on the needs of the tourist industry in Ontario. It serves to bring to the attention of the members of this House what those needs are.

He has quite correctly identified that tourism is the province’s largest employer; that the tourist industry and the hospitality industry is the second largest earner of foreign exchange in this province. It is the third largest provincial industry in this province. There are more full-time and part-time jobs in tourism and hospitality in Ontario than in any other sector.

I know the member for Simcoe East has a long-time commitment to tourism. He is generally recognized and acknowledged as a friend of the tourist industry. His intentions are good. His proposed legislation, however, in my view, is not. I would like to tell members why it is not.

My friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has already made the statement it will not have any impact, it will not change anything. We know in the past that members of the Progressive Conservative Party have been prone to have such boards appointed. They serve as make-work programs for former MPPs and MPs and their friends, and their federal counterparts continue to use them for that purpose. That, however, is not reason enough. There are a large number of organizations in this province that provide support and that provide information and advice to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

We do not need another group that comes to Toronto one day a month, sits in session and then goes back to the various parts of the province.

Tourism Ontario Inc., for example, which is an umbrella organization looking after the various tourist and trade associations and organizations in this province, provides a strong effective voice on behalf of tourism. The Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association does the same thing. Regional development councils are now providing input to the ministry on the needs of tourism. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Inc. is another organization which does that job.

There is no need, in my view, for another advisory board. There are some needs. There are some very significant needs in tourism in this province and I would like to speak to some of them. The needs, however, are not general and they are not vague. They are specific. Tourism needs improved marketing. It needs to be sold and to be effectively sold. That marketing should be based on research. It should be based on sound planning.

We have in Ontario a number of tourism organizations which are in the marketing business. In my riding, for example, the Muskoka Tourism Marketing Agency is considered to be a model across this province for organizations which do an effective job of marketing the tourist industry. We need more help and more support for them. In this province we need effective promotion for the tourist industry. The northern Ontario tourist information centres enhancement program is an excellent example of effective promotion.

Rather than spend money on another advisory committee and on bringing members from across this province to Toronto once a month to meet and accomplish very little, I would suggest the expansion of the NOTICE program would have much more impact and much more effect.

We need to have more and better rest stops across the province. We need those to include picnic areas, information centres and to provide for an upgrading of signs, buildings and grounds that surround those centres. The tourist industry needs more effective information, as do my friends across the Legislature. We need information for tourism on marketing trends. We need to be able to share that information. We need a centralized clearinghouse for the tourist industry so that information can be effectively distributed across this province.

We need a national data bank for the tourist industry. In my view, that would be a far better way to spend funds. I would suggest that if we have money to spend on tourism, let us spend it on management development. Let us take organizations such as the Canadian Tourism Management Centre at Georgian College of Applied Arts and Technology in Barrie and assist that kind of organization to provide management training for young people wanting to enter the field.

Just as important -- and perhaps even more important -- let us provide cost-sharing programs to assist people who are presently in the tourist industry to gain the kinds of in-service training they need in order to carry on the programs that are currently in place.

Tourism needs more research and study, and I know that my friends are always supportive of this government when it talks about doing more study, but we do need more study and more research into marketing of tourism and of some of the new technologies which will become available, and are currently available, to support tourism in this province.

At a recent conference of the Tourism and Hospitality Educators Association, a paper was presented on the outlook for employment and education in tourism and hospitality. That is the kind of background paper and the kind of study paper that the tourist industry needs.

In conclusion, what the member has proposed is another piece of vague, general, nonspecific legislation. He has proposed, as has his party on many occasions before him, to put in place another advisory board when we already have many advisory boards. We do not need more vague generalities. We need specific, targetted strategies to improve. We do need action, and I am sure that this government will be providing the action. I would suggest that this bill is vague, it is unclear, it is -- as my friend the member for Algoma has just so correctly pointed out -- without meaning.

I find it difficult to understand how a man can on one hand say, “This bill has no meaning,” and then on the next hand say, “I will support it.” It seems to me that is typical of the opposition in this Legislature.

Although I support the concept of the promotion of tourism in this province, and I think all of us do, and all of us recognize it is important, I would be concerned if one more advisory board might be mistaken by some people to be the answer to our problems. It is not the answer to our problems. We need more specific strategies developed to aid tourism. Therefore, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I might start off by saying that I disagree with the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black). He is not supportive. He says we do not need another advisory board. I suggest that government needs all the advice it can get. Sunday shopping is an example.

I strongly support the member for Simcoe East and his Bill 24,

An Act to establish a Tourism Advisory Board. The member mentioned that it should be composed of people from industry, labour and government. I suggest there should also be representatives from chambers of commerce, the agricultural sector, sports organizations, such as the Ontario Federation of Hunters and Anglers, and perhaps other organizations should be involved as well.

Consider the importance of sports fishing in this province. Consider the millions of dollars spent in the salmon hunt. Let us take a look at the example in Michigan where they are able to generate millions of dollars because they have been able to do something with sports fishing, other than the small effort that we put into that industry.

Representatives on this advisory board should also include people knowledgeable in recreational areas as well. Tourism is an extremely important industry and it is my understanding it will be the number one industry in this province by the end of the century. I mention the sports fishing industry as an example. If we think in terms of the people who would benefit: owners of hotels, motels, cabins, restaurants, marinas, grocery stores, gas stations, tackle shops, sports shops, and possibly even the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the brewers retail stores, would all benefit from an increase in activity in this sector of the tourist industry.

Mr. Villeneuve: Now they will be open seven days a week.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Yes, seven days a week. Another area of the tourist industry that does not even come close to its potential is the farm vacation program. Ontario’s vacation farms program was started in 1967-68 with 24 hosts operating independently, supported by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. That is the old organization of the member for Lincoln (Mr. Pelissero). Ten or 12 new hosts joined each year, but they also lost about the same number. In the mid-1970s the government became involved in a very limited way.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food gave some support and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism also provided some assistance, mostly in an advisory capacity. I presented a paper on the Ontario vacation farm programs in 1977. It is one of the best papers ever presented on that topic and I hope members will have an opportunity to read it.

Mr. Ballinger: Who was the government at that time?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Read about my success. I would like to read a couple of excerpts from this paper:

“In this paper, I would like to explore one small dimension of the tourist industry that has not yet been fully developed, but which would be the type of innovative program that could serve as a model for the development of other programs of a similar nature. In my view, expansion of the Ontario vacation farms program would provide an attractive alternative form of vacationing for tourists, both from inside Ontario and from other parts of the continent and Europe. At the same time, it would provide added revenue for residents of Ontario’s rural communities participating in the program.”

It is 17 to 18 pages long so l will just read one other excerpt. I suggested at that time that Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, which was my riding and is now called Wellington, could be a pilot project and that the government could co-ordinate efforts in that direction:

To use Wellington as an example, within a two-hour drive, 110 miles from Fergus, which is the centre of Wellington there are about four million people living in large urban centres in Ontario, plus some 1.5 million in Buffalo. Within a 400-mile radius there are approximately 20 million people, and that does not include Chicago, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York or Boston, which are not far outside that range. That is a potential of 50 million people within a day’s drive of Wellington who could participate in a very inexpensive vacation program.

I will not go on to mention the many reasons why Wellington should be chosen as the site for this pilot project, but most of the members know that area and would agree.

Mr. Wildman: It is mainly because you are the member.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: That is the main reason. I have researched this tourism program extensively. I have contacted the proper officials in several provinces, especially Prince Edward Island and I have also talked with people in Great Britain, especially in Wales and in England.

Working with the excellent leaders in the Ontario farm vacations program, the executive and I were able to convince the then Minister of Agriculture and Food, Dennis Timbrell, to provide some financial assistance back in the early 1980s. I would also like to give credit to the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), who was Tourism critic in those days and totally supported this program.

I wish some of the other members who have spoken today would follow his example. The farm vacations program is now on the move. In 1980, there were 22 host farms; in 1982, 44; in 1984, 61, and this year, we have 96 farmers engaged in the program. More should be done.

The program is administered by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). I want the member for Lincoln to listen to this. Logic would dictate that it should fall under the mandate of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. That ministry should have the expertise to market this program to its full potential.

This is one example of where the Tourism Advisory Board could offer the government some guidance and determine which ministry is best able to assist this Ontario farm vacations program to reach its full potential. It is an outside advisory body that could make the determination that might help both ministers.

Last week I did some research on the program to see where it was at today. I would like to mention some of the highlights of that. We checked with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in Fergus and Guelph, the chamber of commerce and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation in Toronto. We asked if the latter had any statistics. They have no program; it is too small for their department.

Many of the people in this Legislature are likely not aware of what the farm program is, and if they are not, they should be. I would like to mention the average costs that I received from one of the top people in the program. The average cost per adult for three meals a day is $35. For accommodation of six days and nights and three meals a day it is $180. For a family of two adults and two children, three meals a day for one week cost $600.

One could spend that in a downtown hotel in one day for four people. There are many people out there who cannot afford that type of accommodation in downtown Toronto. In fact, many people in Toronto would like nothing better than to go into the rural part of this province and find out what it is all about. I think that $600 for a family of four for all meals and accommodation is exceptionally good value.

My executive spoke to Mrs. John Gillespie from Ayr. The comments were that the OFVP very much appreciated my help. They have been hosts for several years and they feel that assistance with the accommodation guide has been extremely worth while. That is the one the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation puts out. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food puts out Ontario Farm Vacation Programs but it is only distributed in Ontario. This goes all across the country and into Europe, and they feel it is much more beneficial to the members.

Mrs. Gillespie had three or four points she wanted to suggest. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation allowed them access to the tourist consultant from Kitchener, Stephen Pearce, and that was very helpful. If OFVP could have the public make use of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation’s 1-800 number, that would be very beneficial. If the OFVP could be listed in the accommodation seasonal guide, because some farms offer winter vacations as well, that would also be of assistance, and all guests should be requested to fill out a questionnaire.

Mr. Hampton: It is with some pleasure that I have an opportunity to speak on this bill. My constituency of Rainy River, along with the constituency of Kenora next to it, has a very large number of tourist resorts. In fact, my community, the community of Fort Frances, in the summertime becomes one of the largest ports of entry from the United States into Canada, strictly for the purposes of tourism. In the summer, it is not unusual to find American tourists lined up for three or four miles to cross the bridge to get into Canada to catch some of the fish that our area is famous for.

Similarly, the small community of Rainy River, which is located at the very western edge of the riding, up against the Manitoba border, also becomes a thriving tourist community in the summer. In fact, that community is pursuing right now with the federal government the opportunity of having the airport on the American side of the border declared an international airport and having Canadian customs inspection available at that airport to ease the entry of American tourists.

This bill is certainly quite important for the part of Ontario that I am from. It is for that reason that I support the bill and I support the ideas that are contained within it. The establishment of the Tourism Advisory Board is important for a number of reasons.

First of all, it is very necessary, I think, to expand the vision of tourism in Ontario today. One of the things that strikes me when I watch many of the tourism ads is that more and more what is being advertised is the city of Toronto. I recognize that tourism is a very important part of the Toronto economy and I recognize that it makes a large contribution to the province, but I have to remind the House -- and I think the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation needs to be reminded -- of the fact that there is a very large area of Ontario which is virtually dependent upon tourism, and that large area of Ontario needs to be recognized.

The advisory board that this bill would establish would, I think, go a long way in assisting this government to realize that tourism is not just a Toronto phenomenon; it is a phenomenon that is important to a very large

section of the province. More than that, the government needs, I believe, some rather specific advice on the whole issue of tourism.

I am afraid if the government does not get that advice and along the way begins to encounter the complexities of the tourism problem, this government will pull what is beginning to appear to be its favourite move, that is, it will pull its “duck and run.” As I look at what is being proposed in the tourism management agreements, that is precisely what they seem to be doing, handing over responsibility for the tourism industry to the private sector and letting it be that sector’s problem.

Mr. Wildman: Another name for the Liberal Party: Ducks Unlimited.

Mr. Hampton: Please, that is a rather respected organization, Ducks Unlimited, and I do not know whether I want to sully its name like that.

Quite seriously, as I look at what is proposed in the tourism management agreements, I am afraid that looks very much like handing off responsibility for tourism to the private sector and saying: “You do it. We do not have any solutions.” There are some solutions and there is some good advice that can be offered to the government, and I want to deal with some of those concrete things at this time.

Distributed throughout my riding, and in fact taking up a very large part of it, is a provincial park that we should all be quite proud of, Quetico park. Quetico park has a very large wilderness area. It is known throughout the world. It is known throughout many urban areas in the United States and, in fact, many young entrepreneurs have recently come to Quetico park and are now providing a different kind of tourism.

It is tourism aimed at bringing people to the park who are interested in photography; aimed at bringing people from an urban setting into the park who are interested in a wilderness experience; aimed not just at someone who wants to fish but at someone who is generally closed in by the urban experience and wants to experience wilderness in all its manifestations.

They are being successful in attracting not only people from the large urban centres in the United States but also from such faraway places as Japan, Germany and Great Britain. I would argue very strongly that the government should be looking at this kind of tourism development in the future and utilizing some of our crown land in this way. That is the kind of advice that this advisory board could provide the government. That is one concrete way.

There are several other concrete things that government could and should be looking at, and I want to mention them quickly. In my area, where we have a large number of small tourist camps, we must reach those tourist camps by means of secondary highways, but the state of secondary highways in northwestern Ontario at this time is nothing less than deplorable.

When there are four or five tourist operators phoning me in one day and saying, “I had tourists from Iowa, from Minneapolis, from Chicago who attempted to get to my tourist camp this spring and they could not make it because the road is so bad,” and it is a provincial secondary highway, something has to be done. It is not the same thing as fixing up Highway 401. It is not at all the same thing. It would not involve one tenth of the expense and yet the immediate returns would be there.

The member for Algoma mentioned the issue of gasoline prices. How can this government justify gasoline prices all across northwestern and northern Ontario that are four cents a litre higher than they are in southern Ontario? They cannot justify them. It affects everything we do in northern Ontario: transportation in and transportation out. In itself that is a factor in disillusioning tourists who want to come from the United States to experience the tourist facilities and the tourism experience that we offer in northwestern Ontario.

Let me give some other examples. If you want to cross from the United States into Canada where I live, the bridge crossing the Rainy River is owned not by the government of Ontario, not by the Canadian government, not by the state of Minnesota, not by the American government, but by the paper company. In fact, you have to drive through two paper mills to get across the border.

In its recently released reports, the Ministry of the Environment has stated that those two mills have the worst air quality of any mills in Ontario. One can see right away what the tourist is confronted with as he comes across the border hoping to do some fishing, hoping to experience some interesting wildlife and wilderness.

Mr. Black: They should come to Muskoka and Georgian Bay.

Mr. Hampton: I am afraid that is the kind of solution the government is proposing. I am afraid that is just it and that is not good enough.

There are some concrete things that can be done in terms of working with the Ministry of Transportation, with the Ministry of the Environment and with the Ministry of Natural Resources. In our part of Ontario now, many of the pulp companies cut right up to the river’s edge, cut right up to the edge of the lake and, indeed, cut right up to the edge of the highway. What does that look like to a tourist who comes across the border expecting to see wilderness and all he sees for four miles along the highway is something that looks like a desert because all the trees have been cut away? That is not good tourist management.

I conclude by saying that this bill and the ideas it encompasses would do some good things for this government.

Mr. McLean: I want to compliment the member for Algoma for his support of this bill and his remarks during this debate. I also want to compliment the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) for his comments in support of the bill and I want to thank the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) for his comments in support of the bill.

However, I am not so sure about the comments of my friend the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay who does not support this bill and who, in my estimation, does not want to support the future of the great tourism industry we have, promoting it --

Mr. Villeneuve: That is exactly it.

Mr. McLean: I said further promotion of it. I just hope he will reconsider and support this bill and that his party will also. There were some indications in his remarks with regard to promoting rest stops. Some three years ago during an election campaign, his leader indicated that would be one of his promises. To this day, it is still an election promise.

The other thing I want to mention is the gas prices in Ontario. Some time ago, the Treasurer brought in legislation which did away with the ad valorem tax on gasoline and made it a flat rate. At that time, he wanted 8.8 cents per litre. We, along with the New Democratic Party, had him reconsider and it ended up at 8.3 cents a litre. However, today, if the ad valorem tax were still in effect, the people of this province would be paying approximately 3.5 cents less a litre for their fuel. That is a very important item. When we look at fuel and we want to have tourists come here, the gas price is one thing that is so important.

The other aspect of the bill that I want to elaborate on just a bit is the importance of tourism in the province. Just last year, the Ojibway Indians in Rama township had a special project which was funded through the Futures program in co-operation with that community, a large tourist attraction. I think it is going to be something that will take place across the province.

I have talked to the members of the Christian Island band with regard to the development of Hope and Beckwith islands as a tourist attraction. There are many things in this province that we can deal with that would bring more tourist dollars to this province. Here we are in this area of the province supporting tourism and my colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay is not in favour of and does not want to support this bill. I find that hard to accept.

The member mentioned Georgian College. I can tell him about the tourism programs they have in Georgian College. They are excellent programs. I can also tell him about the programs at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. They are great. He says there is no impact. What an attitude. I do not accept that. No impact with this bill? Certainly there would be impact. This advisory body would give the ministry some great advice. It is what they need.

The member talks about an extra advisory board. Over the past two years, we have seen 37 advisory boards appointed and I have not seen their reports, but I want it in a bill and I want an advisory board that is approved by all of us in this Legislature, not just by the Liberal Party.

In closing, I want to ask members for support for this bill for the betterment of tourism in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: This concludes the debate on Mr. McLean’s bill.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if we could agree to go clockwise rather than counter-clockwise on all private members’ bills. It really does not make much difference as long as we do the same thing every week. I would suggest that we simply rotate in a clockwise motion. It seems to me that is the way we do most of the time.

The Deputy Speaker: We have done it both ways in the past. Is it the wish of the House that we continue the clockwise rotation as usual?

Mr. Wildman: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: While I support this bill, it is most appropriate that when the Conservatives introduce bills, we go counter-clockwise.

The Deputy Speaker: Now that the House has been very clear as to what it wants, the chair is very flexible, but I would like the House to decide. Is there a consensus to move clockwise?

Agreed to.

HERITAGE BUILDING FUND

Mr. Cleary moved resolution 6:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that heritage buildings play an important role in reminding us of the dedication our forefathers had in establishing a country that differs from the United States, the government of Ontario should establish a heritage building fund to be used to maintain heritage buildings in their original state for all to enjoy and that money for the fund should be derived from the provincial lotteries.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and he may reserve any portion of it for his windup.

Mr. Cleary: It is an honour for me to address this House on the matter of heritage buildings. As some members may know, I have been involved in municipal politics for many years as both reeve for the township of Cornwall and warden of the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Over those many years, one issue which continually came up for discussion was the matter of heritage buildings. To appreciate fully why this is so, I would like to share with the members a brief history of the Cornwall area. I say “area” because from time to time I may speak about areas which are geographically outside my riding.

In 1784, the first immigrants settled in the Cornwall area. These people were United Empire Loyalists who served the British crown under General Cornwallis in the American Revolution, which had recently ended. General Cornwallis must have been quite a man, for they named the settlement in his honour. It is interesting to note that although it has often been assumed that the first settlers in Cornwall were of British origin, there were also settlers of French descent. This has led to a rich and diverse cultural heritage which Cornwall enjoys today.

The person under whose supervision pioneers located there was Sir John Johnson, who commanded the King’s Royal Regiment of New York during the revolution. These first settlers, who came from the southern part of New York State, New Jersey and the Mohawk Valley decided, or had it decided for them, that they did not want to live in the United States but would prefer to live in a country under British rule. Having decided to leave the new republic and leave many of their belongings behind, they travelled north to the Ile Jésus near Montreal. It is said that some of these people lived on the island for as long as two years before locating in the Cornwall riding.

Once landed in Cornwall, they were given an allowance for land from our government and immediately started clearing forests in order to allow them to plant their crops and get on with their new lives. After all, a majority of them were farmers, and Canada at that time was an agricultural economy.

The second wave of immigrants in the area was the highland Scots in 1786. They settled primarily in Glengarry. A considerable number of them settled in the township of Cornwall along the banks of the Raisin River and formed a settlement which is known as St. Andrews West, seven miles north of Cornwall. One of these newly arrived immigrants was a gentleman by the name of Alexander Macdonald, who would later marry Nancy Macdonald. Their eldest son was Sir John Sandfield Macdonald, who would later become Ontario’s first Premier.

The individuals I have spoken of chose to come to Canada and settle in Ontario. I believe they saw in the new land something which was worth the pain and effort they had to endure to tame it for future generations. Something was better than what they had left behind.

Once established in their new homes, they were willing to defend their new lands. You bet! The War of 1812, and Congress had just declared war on Britain. I am sure most members remember their history lessons from their school days and the great battle of Crysler’s Farm, where 1,300 men defended the region against an attack of between 16,000 and 18,000 men of an American army. The defeat of the Americans was decisive. They had defended what they had worked hard to build, and once the battle was over, history tells us that they beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. In other words, they discarded the implements of war for those of agriculture.

Around 1870, good farm land was a scarce commodity in Quebec, and young men and women were encouraged to move west to Upper Canada. It is fortunate for us today that some decided to settle in the Cornwall riding for, as I indicated earlier, Cornwall enjoys a bicultural heritage. At the same time, Cornwall was becoming an industrial centre. Cornwall, in fact, was the early leader in the industrial development of Ontario. It had many large modern textile plants which earned the proud title of Cornwall, the factory town.

I could talk for hours on the history of our riding, but I am sure that members can see what a historically rich riding I represent. It is because my constituency has such a rich heritage that I can see the importance of an Ontario heritage conservation program.

At this point I would like to elaborate on some of the heritage programs which are currently funded by the Ontario government. The Ministry of Culture and Communications and its agency, the Ontario Heritage Foundation, provide financial support for the preservation and restoration of provincial heritage buildings. Their grant programs encourage community involvement in architectural conservation activities and help strengthen our sense of community identification.

For example, the community facilities improvement program, known as CFIP, provides capital funding for the planning, purchase, construction, improvement and renovation of cultural facilities and for conservation of heritage buildings, including historic bridges. Preserving Ontario’s Architecture, another ministry program, helps to support the efforts of municipalities and property owners to preserve our architectural heritage. Currently, funding for the government’s heritage program is awarded by the Ontario Heritage Foundation.

The Ontario Heritage Foundation awards capital grants for the conservation of heritage properties when the directors of the foundation judge the properties to be of considerable architectural and historical significance.

After reviewing the current program which is made available by the Ministry of Culture and Communications, I would like to commend the minister on the marvellous job she has done in preserving Ontario’s historical heritage. Her work with Ontario museums, historical societies and municipal boards is noteworthy.

When I originally envisioned my resolution for a heritage building fund, I had in mind the restoration of actual buildings. I still believe that to be the case. However, let me go one step further. What is also missing is a central tourist package which focuses on the major forces that have helped to shape the history of Ontario. This package, which would be funded by proposed heritage funds, could emphasize such important themes as industry, agriculture, transportation, advances in medicine and health care and education.

As I mentioned earlier, Cornwall was an early leader in the industrial development of Ontario. Yet what does a visitor to this town learn of Cornwall riding’s industrial experience? The same might be said, in a different context, for Glengarry. The Scottish pioneers came to Glengarry and carved out their homes and farms in the new land. However, from one generation to another, agricultural practices, machinery, crops and livestock changed and farmers sought to wring a living for themselves and their families from the land. Yet where can one go to see and learn about farming practices over the 19th and 20th centuries in this distinctive Scottish community?

The same observations could be made about the mining industry in northern Ontario, or lumbering in the Georgian Bay area, or even our tourism in the Thousand Islands or the Muskokas. The proposed tourist packages would outline all the museums in a particular area that specialized in such subjects as medicine, transportation, health care, industry and agriculture. Thus, the tourists who travel in our riding could pick up a package from the local tourist bureau and learn about Cornwall’s rich industrial past and the Glengarry agricultural roots.

On that note, I would like to reserve the remaining time for my final remarks.

Ms. Bryden: I agree with the mover of the resolution that the preservation of Ontario’s heritage buildings is a matter of great importance and I congratulate him on reminding the new Liberal government of this fact. Since he was not here last spring, he may not be aware that the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture brought out a discussion paper in April 1987 affirming its commitment to updating the Ontario Heritage Act and stating that there is indeed a provincial interest in heritage.

Since then, we have heard nothing from the ministry on this commitment, nor was there any significant increase in the allocation of money to the programs of the ministry in the May budget. It is true that the day after the budget, the then Minister of Citizenship and Culture, now Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Munro), announced a $2.2-million initiative of grants and educational programs to preserve our architectural heritage. However, this was not really a new initiative but a replacement for the five-year BRIC program, which was about to run out. BRIC stands for “building rehabilitation and improvement campaign.”

In her statement the day after the budget, the minister gave no indication of the time span for spending the $2.2 million. In fact, it appears to have been just another pre-election promise, part of the $2.5 billion of promises made by the Liberal Party during the campaign, and we have not yet heard where the money is coming from to implement them.

It is on the money question that I

part company with the resolution of the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary). We are already financing too many essential programs through lotteries. If we add a new lottery, we are increasing the encouragement to gamble and decreasing legislative control of the allocation of funds. The proceeds of the six lotteries that we now have are presently earmarked for physical fitness, sports, recreation, cultural activities, health and environmental research and hospital capital grants.

Last year the provincial Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) tried to get his hands on all the lottery proceeds so he would have the say in where the money went. There was such an outcry from local sport, recreational and cultural organizations who depended on the lottery proceeds for their activities that he withdrew the bill. That was one time I agreed with the provincial Treasurer.

I am shocked that the member for Cornwall has so little concern for the sports, recreational and cultural programs in his own community that he is prepared to rob them of some of the lottery proceeds which are earmarked for them. At present the Minister of Culture and Communications, her new title, is already siphoning off $1.5 million from Lottario as part of the commitment to restore the Elgin-Winter Garden theatres. This project is estimated to cost $19 million, of which $11 million will come from the federal and provincial governments. It is not clear whether the Ontario government is planning a further raid on lottery proceeds to meet this ongoing commitment in the next year or two.

At any rate, the funding of anything as important as the preservation of our heritage buildings should not be left to lottery proceeds. If the government really means what it said in its April 1987 discussion paper about its interest in the field, it should put its money where its mouth is. It should give the Legislature the full opportunity to debate the allocation of funds to this important area and to see whether the allocation is adequate.

I can support the member’s motion only with the caveat that if legislation is brought in to implement it, the reference to financing it from lottery proceeds would be dropped and the program would be financed as a recognized responsibility of the government through the budget.

In November 1986, the Architectural Conservancy of Toronto issued a news release on the inadequacies of the Ontario Heritage Act and recommended three significant amendments. They related to demolition stays, relief from property taxes on certain designated buildings and empowering municipalities to designate properties owned by the provincial government. Such buildings, of which the old city hall in Toronto is an example, are not subject to demolition controls and the other requirements of the act.

The conservancy contacted the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in the spring of 1985, when he was still Leader of the Opposition, to ask if he supported the above three amendments. He agreed to them all. He has had two and a half years in government to implement them, but nothing has happened. I urge the member for Cornwall to raise his concerns about heritage buildings in his own caucus and show us whether the Premier was just playing politics in 1985 or whether he and his party really believe in preserving heritage buildings and funding the work adequately.

The Toronto Historical Board has done yeoman’s service for the past several years in lobbying for improvements in the Ontario Heritage Act. I congratulate it on its attempts to get better demolition controls in the Planning Act when it went through in 1983 as a new act under the preceding Progressive Conservative government.

The NDP members introduced amendments to strengthen the demolition control

section but were voted down by a combination of Progressive Conservative and Liberal votes in the committee that was dealing with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in 1982 and 1983.

The Toronto Historical Board’s managing director, Scott James, cited the provincial and federal governments as the greatest threat to Toronto’s heritage buildings because most of them are owned by those governments; but they are not, as I mentioned, subject to the Heritage Act.

The bill is definitely in the Liberals’ court. With its huge majority, there is nothing to inhibit action on heritage protection except a lack of will. I urge the mover of the resolution to pursue this matter very vigorously in his own caucus. I hope we will have some action this session, if possible. It is long overdue.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is indeed an honour and a pleasure to participate in the debate brought to this House as private member’s notice of motion 6 by my colleague and neighbour the member for Cornwall, Cornwall township and Charlottenburgh township.

Certainly, we represent an area very steeped in history. I was pleased, as I noticed the member was the other day, at the change of command of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders, and I just want to expand a bit on the history that my colleague the member for Cornwall brought forth in his preliminary debate. It has to do with a bit of history of the regiment.

In 1804 -- and that is not yesterday -- former members of the Glengarry Fencibles of the British army who served in Europe settled behind the area already taken up by veterans of the American Revolutionary War. On July 3, 1868, the 59th Stormont and Glengarry Battalion of Infantry was authorized to be formed from six independent companies, and to this day the S, D and G Highlanders is the only regiment authorized to wear the tartan Macdonell of Glengarry, which I very proudly sport today.

I was glad to see my colleague’s interest in history and heritage buildings; it is significant because in what is now part of his riding, the township of Charlottenburgh; I believe we have five or six bicentennial farms, which were recognized back in 1984 during the bicentennial celebrations. I believe that says a great deal about the history of the area.

In eastern Ontario, we have a strong attachment to our history. The Glengarry Highland Games, for instance, held annually in my home town of Maxville, are a living reminder of the Scottish traditions and heritage in eastern Ontario. Upper Canada Village, near Morrisburg, is itself a living museum of life in the 1860s.

Even our municipalities date back a long way. For example, this year the village of Lancaster celebrated its centennial. Next year, the thriving little community of Chesterville will be celebrating its sesquicentennial, and the village of Winchester will be celebrating its centennial, so history abounds in the area that we mutually represent.

Our area farms go back a great many years, as I mentioned before. The riding which I formerly represented, including the township of Charlottenburgh, did have 50 per cent of all bicentennial farms in Ontario.

These few examples should provide an adequate reminder to this House of the importance of history and heritage in eastern Ontario and, in particular, the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, which includes, of course, the city of Cornwall.

Having said that, I would like to make some other points about our part of Ontario. I would like to address these particularly to the member for Cornwall.

First, I would point out that we have not shared in the economic boom experienced in our area as compared to, say, the Golden Horseshoe or the city of Toronto. We still require considerable economic expansion to reduce our unemployment rate and provide more full-time jobs.

I personally attended the Eastern Ontario Economic Outlook Conference recently held in Ottawa, and yes, many problems were brought to the fore. However, I was very disappointed to see no Liberal members, either provincially or federally, in attendance at that meeting. Ironically, when the same meeting was held in Kingston last year just prior to an event that happened on September 10, we had two cabinet ministers and a number of private members. How much difference can one year make?

We need an expansion of our tourist facilities and the means to promote these activities. Currently, tourism in S, D and G is mainly a summer activity. We should be expanding to include some winter activities, particularly in the area of Upper Canada Village.

In Cornwall and Charlottenburgh, as well as in my own riding, most of the tourist-related activities are along the St. Lawrence River -- Lake St. Francis, Lake St. Lawrence and the river. On October 7, I wrote the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) on the matter of polychlorinated biphenyl pollution. I also wrote the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil). The latter replied and stated that he agreed there was a problem, however, it was out of his jurisdiction to correct. The Minister of the Environment still has to answer.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation responded, saying that indeed it would be addressed in cabinet. I hope it is happening, I hope it has happened and I hope that corrective measures soon will be put in place.

Our agricultural sector faces low prices, very low prices, particularly for grain producers. At the same time that our farm incomes are being squeezed, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will not allow changes in land use for people to set up small businesses compatible with the struggling farm economy. I think that is a disaster.

The average age of people in our area is going up. This problem relates to a number of issues. The first, as evident in my earlier economic argument, is that we do not have the jobs to keep our young people in the area. The second is our increasing seniors’ population. We need our government here to have a look at providing seniors’ accommodation in a rural setting without discriminating against senior citizens who have been frugal and who have accumulated a bit a wealth over a number of years. Furthermore, we need policies which will make it possible for seniors to qualify for such accommodation when they can no longer bear the burden of home ownership.

Compared to all these issues facing us in eastern Ontario, the need to use lottery funds to preserve heritage buildings is not a real, burning issue. However, it is an important one to the people who I represent and to the people who are represented by my colleague the member for Cornwall. At least that would be the perspective of those of us from eastern Ontario.

The major reason this new member to the Legislature brought this very important private member’s bill is that he readily admits, and has already recognized, that this government is quite obviously not doing the job in preserving heritage buildings.

There is already a program in place to look after heritage buildings. It is commonly known as Preserving Ontario’s Architecture. It is a program launched on May 21, 1987, only a few months ago. The heading on the press release announcing that program was actually a bit of a joke. As the member for Cornwall probably knows, it read as follows: “Bold New Program Will Preserve Ontario’s Architecture.” It then went on to say that the new $2.2-million program would preserve Ontario’s “rich architectural legacy.”

The joke is that this bold new program was simply a repeat of the previous government’s undertaking of $2.2 million in the building rehabilitation and improvement campaign. The minister had simply changed the name of the program, added a few details, but had not added one dollar more; and as my colleague previously mentioned, a study is still out waiting to be tabled in this Legislature.

The member for Cornwall recognized very early in the game that his government is not doing the job in the area of heritage buildings, and I commend him for that. I would suggest with great respect that the member for Cornwall also has to speak to his colleagues who are in cabinet at the decision-making level.

The member for Cornwall should also be aware that a review of Ontario’s heritage policy and the Ontario Heritage Act was announced in February of this year. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for his resolution to have been introduced after the review was completed and made public. As I mentioned, we are still waiting for the results of that study.

I also suspect that the member for Cornwall is probably embarrassed by the financial statement of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) about two weeks ago. Members will recall that in addition to last year’s windfall revenues, this year’s revenues are running $355 million ahead of budget; again, some found money for this very fortunate government. Never before in the history of this province have such huge revenues poured into provincial coffers. The Premier admits to being the luckiest Premier ever to inherit a very enviable position that occurred in spite of him.

However, even during these times of windfall revenues, those of us who have been in this House for at least two and a half years know the government does want to get more control over lottery winnings. As I sum up, I recall standing in my place in this Legislature when Bill 38 was brought forth and was not brought to fruition; under it, lottery earnings would have all gone to the central fund of this government. In small-town Ontario, we must get our share of these lottery funds for sports facilities and heritage buildings.

Mr. Owen: First, I would like to congratulate the member for Cornwall for his election to this Legislature and also to commend him on what I believe is his maiden speech this morning.

I would also like to point out to the House that while I concur in the enthusiasm that has been shown by the member for Cornwall in his efforts for this province to preserve buildings of heritage quality, I am afraid I cannot endorse the rest of his resolution, which advises that he is proposing the setup of a new structure when we already have a structure in place that is functioning for this province.

In fact, the Ontario Heritage Foundation has been in effect for a number of years and is under a two-year review which is still in process. That two-year review, of course, is a time when there is introspection by the foundation itself as to its goals, its aims, what it is trying to do and what it has achieved. That report should be available to us some time later in 1988, and I look forward to that. As a matter of fact, having been a director of the Ontario Heritage Foundation, I welcomed the opportunity of having played a role and a

part in that review program.

There has been a reference made to the community facilities improvement program. I would point out that for the fiscal period 1987-88 there will be $6.9 million spent in that area, and that is money from lotteries. So again, I must oppose the resolution because we are already using lottery moneys in that direction. It has already been mentioned that the moneys available in the Preserving Ontario’s Architecture program is in the vicinity of $2 million, and again it is from the source of lotteries.

I would like to point out that the foundation, in its handling of heritage buildings, has learned a number of things that have to be kept in mind. First of all, they have to look to the historical and architectural qualities of the buildings that are in mind. Beyond that, they have learned that they must have a useful purpose or function for the building. To simply look at a building and say that it has something of quality is not going to maintain it or ensure its future. They have learned that in partnership with the communities, or with the families in the home or with industry if it is a commercial building, together they can work towards preserving our past in heritage buildings.

The heritage foundation has a number of obligations and committees that work underneath it. First of all, there is the historical

section of the foundation, and it deals with encouraging literature and studies on various aspects of our province. In fact, members will find all across this province, in each area, that there are people who are achieving great things with regards to looking into the history and background of their own areas. For example, in my own area, Barrie is about to see, in another week, a book written by Dr. Allan Fisher, who is going to be going into the early history of Barrie and the early people who settled there and how the streets came to be named. Others have done the same in our area of Huronia, and no doubt other areas have enjoyed the same thing.

At the same time, I want to commend the encouragement of the historical and heritage associations in every one of our communities across the whole of Ontario. These are, in fact, the unsung heroes who are recognizing what is of importance to their areas in our history and our tradition. They too should be commended because most of them do this simply because they have an interest in and a passion for our past, knowing the importance it will play in our future. They do so simply because of their interest, simply because of their dedication, with no remuneration or other encouragement or benefits for themselves.

The historical

section also deals with the plaquing that goes on across our province. Many of the members who have been sitting here for some time have undoubtedly attended some of these events where plaquing occurs. For every plaquing event that occurs, there is a great deal of research, there is a great deal of involvement with the community. Sometimes the province has to say unfortunately it is an event, an occurrence or a person that is of only local importance, and therefore local plaquing occurs. But when it is a plaquing which occurs from the Ontario foundation, it means it is of province-wide importance.

Under the foundation, we are in the midst of updating the plaquing book for the whole province, and it should be released very shortly.

In addition to that, of course, we have the architecture committee, which deals with looking into the proposals for heritage preservation, assisting with advice from architects who are known in that field and recommending skilled people and tradespersons with expertise in that particular area. This too is an important role which has been played by the foundation.

In addition to that, of course, there is archaeology, which looks into the more distant heritage of our province. We have a trust committee under the foundation which identifies and looks after buildings that are owned by the foundation itself. In fact, the people of this province own 33 buildings, which we are administering and operating.

Last but not least, of course, there is a committee which deals with the Niagara Escarpment, because we have a natural heritage which must be preserved and looked after in this province.

I would like to point out that my experience has been that the staff at the ministry and at the foundation is dedicated; it is incredibly competent and incredibly overworked. I would like to see if maybe we can give more assistance through the ministry in that direction.

I would like to point out that all of us are able to contribute to the heritage ourselves just by looking at buildings that are proposed in our ridings. How many of the members have gone to the schools in their own communities and said, “Will you consider walking tours, taking children who are studying local history and showing them the importance and significance of buildings right in their own ridings?” How many members have done that? How many members will undertake to do that?

We are trying to encourage the people to use our museums. For example, in my riding of Simcoe Centre, we have an incredibly fine museum. Members need not visit it; they can see it on television this coming Sunday night, because that is the location of the Anne of Green Gables series and there is a sequel running on this Sunday. Members will see that we have taken a church, a school and other buildings of historical significance and brought them to our museum site.

I point out that we have motor tours which identify many of these heritage buildings across the province, and with the co-operation of tourism we have shown that these are available. If members go to the tourist bureaus in their own areas, they will see pamphlets and literature trying to get people to identify more and more with regard to what is of importance to our background.

I note that my friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) has left the chamber.

Interjection.

Mr. Owen: I am sorry. He is here; great. I note that he referred to the bicentennial of 1984. I always wondered how they ever arrived at 1984 as a bicentennial because in fact history has always taught me that it would take place in 1991.

Mr. Villeneuve: So we will celebrate it again.

Mr. Owen: So we will celebrate it again, but with a new government we will be honest and observe it on the date it should take place.

I ask that all of us concentrate on what we can do for heritage. I ask members to look at their railway stations and see what can be done there. I point out that the restoration of a building that is owned by the foundation, the Winter Garden and Elgin theatres, will be observed this coming year. It is the last and only stacked theatre left in the entire world. The restoration that is going on there is something of which we can all be proud, and I hope all members will attend the opening in 1988.

Mr. Breaugh: Rushing in this morning to defend a member who is under fire from his colleagues, I have great sympathy with those dissidents who are attacked scathingly by people in their own caucus just for putting forward a simple resolution in their maiden speech. A little cheap advice from an old wart to a new member: It is OK; you will survive. Dissidents are allowed to live in these premises. It is just a painful career; that is all. These family squabbles are always ugly. Do not worry about them.

I want to tell him that I am going to support the resolution this morning, although it is a scathing commentary on the status of heritage buildings in Ontario that we have come to the point where we want to finance the restoration of our heritage from the numbers racket. That is precisely what is proposed here. The problem, of course, is that there are a lot of other people at the numbers racket trough these days, so there is not very much spillage left around the edge for heritage buildings.

One of the problems for anybody who has even the vaguest interest here, as the previous speaker mentioned, is that a lot of what is done on heritage buildings in Ontario has to do with this thing called “plaquing.” You may think that has to do with dentistry; it does not. It has to do with people sitting around at meetings deciding, “This is an old building worth saving.” The problem is that we have not really got it past that point. The Ontario Heritage Foundation is relatively good at putting a plaque on a building, but this does not do a whole lot for the restoration of the building.

Unless it is a hell of a big plaque, it is not even going to help keep the building up. So one of our problems is that we have got it to the point where we kind of recognize there is some of our heritage involved in the building, but we cannot do much about it.

On the positive side, there are several examples around Ontario of newly created structures at Old Fort William and at Fort Henry and at several other venues around Ontario where we have reconstructed our history. We provide excellent opportunities for young people and our citizens in general to see what Ontario was like in the old days. The tragedy, of course, is that while all this is going on, quite successfully restructuring and recreating the history of this province, where the existing history is already there we cannot seem to do very much to kind of save it.

I am reminded of some examples in my own background. In Napanee there is an old post office and the Ontario Heritage Foundation moved in to try to do something about the restoration of the old post office in Napanee. It was such a failure that the citizens in the community took it back. They kind of seized it from the Ontario Heritage Foundation and put up a huge sign saying: “Heritage Ontario, get out of town. We will do it ourselves.” I think that is not nice. That is not the way it is supposed to be.

Governments are supposed to provide agencies that assist local citizens who have an interest in preserving our heritage. There should be a mechanism to fund them properly. There should be advice for them; technical advice on how to do restoration.

There are several members here who may have a conflict of interest because it is not clear in the resolution whether this is about restoring old fossils or old buildings. If it is old fossils, several will not be able to vote on the matter.

Mr. Black: They are on your left there.

Mr. Breaugh: They used to be on my left, but there are so few now that they are an endangered species so we do not challenge them at all.

Mr. Villeneuve: Be nice. We are nice to you. Your health will suffer, Michael. I can tell that.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate the concern about my personal health.

One of the problems we are going to face in the Legislature is a very serious one that those of us who have been interested in preserving the heritage of Ontario have been aware of for some time. This building, folks, is falling down. The members will notice that as soon as they leave the grand staircase and the beautiful red carpeting that is brand new and enter into the back corridors of the building. Some of the members will be in offices where they will find that the wonderfulness of modern technology does not fit very nicely with the ancient state of this building. The members will find that we have not quite mastered plumbing, heating and lighting and things like that in this building.

Many of us are concerned that a great part of Ontario’s heritage is threatened somewhat, and the best example I can think of is this building we are in today. We do not have a long-term restoration plan for the building itself. We have seen it in many other jurisdictions. Our problems are not unique. Society has generally just kind of left these older buildings, these older parts of our heritage, to kind of decline. Much of what they found as problems we find here.

One of the first problems we have in trying to preserve a building like this is that for years and years people had no interest in this and so they did a great deal of damage around the building. Members will see it all over the place. There is woodwork throughout the building, for example, that if you tried to replace it today would cost an arm and a leg. Yet people are running around stapling wires. The wire is left bare in somebody’s office. Computer wires are stapled to the wall. People knock holes in the walls. There are false ceilings all over the place.

If they had to replace some of the doors around this building, members would begin to see how expensive that can be. There are some interesting examples of places in the building itself where people did try to replace doors and they found, for example, that they do not make doors such as the ones that are used in this building.

A lot of what we have to do across Ontario, in this building and elsewhere, is to provide two or three basic things, the first of which is funding. That has never been present. This motion in a way addresses itself to that. I will support the motion but I want to put this caution up: even the numbers racket in Ontario has its limits. It is not an unending source of funding and in my view this is not the best way to do this. I can think of better ways to get a commitment for long-term funding to do restoration and renovation of buildings to preserve our heritage all across Ontario than to take it out of the numbers racket. That is the first problem I have.

I do not think it should destroy anybody’s ability to support this resolution, but I want to point out that there are real limits to that and that I have a real problem in basically funding projects of this nature from the lotteries. That is our first problem.

Second, as some members have alluded previously, we have kind of talked ourselves around in circles for years and years on how to go about this. The sad tragedy is that while all this discussion is under way and while everybody is writing their book on Ontario’s heritage, Ontario’s heritage is falling to the ground, literally. Those who are interested in preserving the buildings and the sites and that part of the very real heritage of Ontario that you can see in your own community are well aware of how difficult it is to do it.

Theoretically, there are agencies charged with the responsibility of identifying, preserving and restoring Ontario’s heritage across Ontario, but in practical terms they have never been able to do that and you would need a quantum leap of faith to think that if we only wait until February it will happen. I do not believe it will. I do not believe it is going to be high on this government’s priority, though it ought to be.

One of the things that it will have to do, whether it likes it or not, is it is going to have to do something about the building that we are now in. Gravity is going to take its course here. This building is slowly but surely falling to the ground. The roof leaks, and it is not quite exactly like the roof one has on his house. The building outside is being restored gradually and surely, but we do not really have as much technical knowledge as we should have to complete that restoration. So it is a problem that we face here in the assembly itself, and citizens’ groups around Ontario face.

I support the resolution for two very simple reasons. First, the member for Cornwall had the courage to criticize his own government for its abject failure to do anything about this. He risked the condemnation of his own colleagues to put it forward, and I believe anybody who has that kind of intestinal fortitude can use my support no matter what the resolution says. He has it.

Second, I believe that this is a very serious problem that affects a number of people around Ontario who are trying very hard, under difficult conditions, to preserve our heritage. That is eminently supportable.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Cornwall reserved some time. Do you wish to use up the final nine minutes?

Mr. Cleary: I would like to thank all honourable members for their input. I am not here to criticize anyone. The only thing I am here for is to try, I hope, to have some input to make things a bit better.

I have a few comments about the input from the honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). It was not my intention to rob any recreation program. But over the years, in municipal politics, I felt that there are special interest groups in different areas. I felt that if this was included in a lottery program that there probably would be increased sales. That was my thinking.

The honourable member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry made some good comments about some of the things I was going to touch on in my windup about the bicentennial farms, about Upper Canada Village, about the Glengarry Highland Games, which is a big tourist attraction in eastern Ontario. The other thing I wanted to touch on was back in the time of the Seaway, which some of the members might be familiar with. Many of our buildings from Mille Roches and Moulinette were moved to Upper Canada Village and restored in a certain area. Then we have other villages that have not had the same opportunity.

I would like to thank the honourable member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) for part of his remarks. I guess he has probably left, but I hope he does not get too sympathetic with me because I think we will try to stand our own here.

I would like to thank the honourable member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Owen) for some of his remarks as well. I know that some of the things he has mentioned are probably true.

An hon. member: Don’t give him too much credit.

Mr. Cleary: I am not going to give him too much credit.

In my closing remarks I would like to say that this is something that has haunted us in eastern Ontario for a number of years. I feel very strongly that it should be closely looked at. I am very flexible on where the funding comes from.

As I said earlier, I mentioned a lottery because when one is in politics that seems to be easier than getting it out of the direct general revenue.

In closing, I would simply like to say that Ontario has a rich and diverse heritage and we, as a Legislature, should do all that we can in our power to preserve our heritage.

TOURISM ADVISORY BOARD ACT

Mr. Speaker: It is a little difficult for the Speaker at the moment. The standing orders are very clear that a vote shall be taken at 12 o’clock. Is there unanimous consent to hold the vote now?

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McLean has moved second reading of Bill 24.

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.

HERITAGE BUILDING FUND

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cleary has moved resolution 6.

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.

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: I thought it would be interesting to try to follow rent review as tenants see it, particularly tenants at an apartment unit at 25 Wellesley Street East here in the city.

People in this building, because it is a post-1976 building, were hit with a 20 per cent rent hike in 1986, and they were asked for a further 20 per cent increase in 1987. They are now paying for the utilities -- heat and light -- that were previously paid as part of their rent.

They thought they had a rent review process in the works, but they are now beginning to see all of the loopholes that are there. They have paid the second round of rent increases up front. Many of them have left the building because the landlord is interested in turning it into an apartment hotel now. They have begun to experience the delays that are present for all tenants in Ontario under the current rent review process.

They thought the landlord had dates to meet in terms of submitting cost estimates for the rent review process. They found out the landlord can have extension after extension.

They are beginning to understand exactly what the process is all about. It is a system which is unfair to landlord and tenant alike. It results in nondecisions. It puts a heavy economic penalty on the tenants all the way through the system. It is a system that is just plain not working; 23,000 people are waiting for their applications to be heard, and none of them is getting a decision out of the process.

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES

M. Villeneuve: Les députés progressistes-conservateurs de cette Assemblée législative désirent exprimer leur désaccord en ce qui concerne une injuste initiative des libéraux envers les caisses populaires de l’Ontario. En mars 1987, les «credit unions» ont inscrit un déficit collectif net de $85 millions. Cela représente près de 10 pour cent des actifs des «credit unions», qui sont en difficulté. Donc, ce gouvernement a proposé un plan de redressement de $75 millions.

Au contraire, nos caisses populaires sont en bonne santé financière. Les caisses ont leur propre fonds de stabilisation, qui s’élève à $7.5 millions, pour absorber leur déficit de $5.3 millions. Il leur reste, donc, un surplus de $2.2 millions en plus des réserves individuelles de $17 millions, mais ce gouvernement a décidé d’associer ces deux groupes.

Les caisses et les «credit unions» ont tous deux exigé deux fonds séparés. Le projet de loi les reconnaît clairement comme deux groupes séparés. Ces deux groupes ont fait savoir qu’ils ne veulent ni recevoir ni obtenir cet argent.

Les membres de mon parti insistent pour que le gouvernement reconsidère ses propositions et traite les «credit unions» et les caisses populaires individuellement et séparément.

ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH BRAIN INJURIES

Mr. Morin: There always seems to be a segment of society that, because of a stroke of bad luck, falls between the cracks of our social system. I am referring to those people who are suffering from brain injuries. Statistics are alarming. An educated guess puts the number at 44 new cases each day. Most of them are under 30, and 80 per cent are male.

The needs of the brain-injured are considerable. Some of the difficulties involve social behaviour. They are often irritable, anxious and easily depressed; under stress they become verbally abusive.

The greatest tragedy is that once their hospital-based rehabilitation programs are over, head-injured persons and their families are left to cope alone. Many head-injured persons land up alone in psychiatric facilities and, even worse, in jail. The solution is for the province to assist in providing co-ordinated services in the community.

Presently, Canadians with severe disabilities due to brain injury look to the United States for help. These facilities offer a blend of techniques not available in Ontario.

I have cases in my constituency where families are torn apart by the stress, the mental anguish and the financial burden. On behalf of the brain-injured and their families, I ask that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) take immediate action to establish parallel facilities in Ontario and, in the short term, to allow them to go the United States for treatment and to be fully covered by the Ontario health insurance plan so that they can get the treatment they rightly deserve.

CHILEAN WINES

Ms. Bryden: I was shocked to learn last week that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario had announced it was giving shelf space to wines from Chile. Chile is a country whose record in violating human rights is as bad or worse than the record of South Africa, but on the instructions of the government the board does not stock any products of South Africa as a protest against their human rights policies.

All members of this Legislature have recently received an information package on an international campaign to end all torture and oppression in Chile. The package came from Professor Israel Halperin at the University of Toronto. He has a worldwide support group which is publicizing shocking violations of human rights in Chile to strengthen public opinion to demand that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be enforced in every country in the world. His documentation includes the horrifying story of Carmen Gloria Quintana, who was set on fire by Pinochet’s soldiers in Chile. She survived to tell her story, amazingly.

I urge the government to ask the Liquor Control Board of Ontario to reconsider its decision to stock Chilean wines. In this way, the government will express our solidarity with the international campaign.

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister about a unique circumstance that could be used to house and treat some of the 93,000 middle-aged residents of Ontario who are afflicted by Alzheimer’s disease. This is a disorder of the brain that causes loss of memory and serious mental deterioration over a period of time ranging from two to 20 years. It usually results in the death of those afflicted.

As I told this Legislature before, the riding of Simcoe East has the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia, which has both staff and facilities that could be used to care for and treat patients suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Earlier this year, the minister announced a series of programs aimed at community living for mentally handicapped residents at facilities such as Huronia Regional Centre. Rather than losing facilities like this and shifting staff elsewhere in the province, I urge the minister to consider retraining the staff to handle patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

This is a serious affliction that is devastating not only to the victims but to their families as well, because they must travel great distances to visit their institutionalized relatives. Alzheimer’s disease is not yet treatable, and a considerable amount of research is required to get to the cause of this affliction.

I urge the minister to consider using the Huronia Regional Centre for a care and treatment facility for those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. I urge the minister to establish free training programs for his staff in that area.

SIMCOE CHRISTMAS PANORAMA

Mr. Miller: I rise today to announce to the House that the annual panorama of lights in Simcoe was officially lighted at 7:30 on the evening of December 1 this year. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the month-long panorama, which annually attracts up to 500,000 visitors to the town of Simcoe. I invite all members to visit Simcoe during the month of December and to walk through the park and see the display for themselves.

I am sure all members in the House join me in sending my best wishes to Simcoe for another successful year and in congratulating the chamber of commerce, the Simcoe parks department, the planning committee and all the companies and organizations which so generously donate their time and resources to this beautiful Christmas tradition.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Swart: I want to direct my statement to the Minister of Community and Social Services, even though he is not in the House.

There is a very real desire, an understandable desire, on the part of people who are on family benefits to receive their cheques this month in advance of Christmas. Let me put the case for this early payment in one of my constituent’s own words, who wrote to me and said:

“As you may know, I have been, and still am, on the Ontario provincial family benefits pension for a long time. I was wondering if you could try to persuade the government to send our disability pension cheques before Christmas. Every year they come too late to really do anything beneficial for Christmastime. It is hard to make ends meet any time of the year, but Christmas is the most crucial time for anyone, I am sure. There are so many things to buy and so little money to do it with.”

We phoned the ministry and we got the answer that family benefits do not make their payments earlier during December in order to accommodate those people, nor do they have any intention of doing so in the future. Surely this is not the voice of a compassionate government. I ask the minister to reconsider.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In the 1986 speech from the throne, this government announced the formation of the Premier’s Council and the allocation of $1 billion to support science and technology research and development in the private sector and post-secondary institutions.

The Premier’s Council and the technology fund form the cornerstone of this government’s drive to develop long-term strategies for economic development in Ontario. These strategies emphasize technological advancements and research and development as a way of improving our international competitiveness. The urgent need for this country to improve its record of industrial research and development was underlined by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) at last week’s first ministers’ conference in Toronto.

Today I would like to inform the House of progress towards achieving the objectives of the technology fund and to announce several awards for private sector industrial research and development.

Members will recall that in June we announced the establishment of the centres of excellence with an allocation of $200 million from the fund. I expect financial support to begin flowing to those centres on January 1, 1988.

The university research incentive fund, a component of the technology fund, has allocated $8 million this year to encourage joint research projects between industry and universities.

The centres for entrepreneurship were announced by my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) earlier this fall with a total allocation of about $1 million.

Now I am pleased to announce the first three awards under the industrial research and development component of the technology fund.

The first award is to Canadian Astronautics Ltd. of Ottawa. The company will be working with Queen’s and Carleton universities and the departments of the Environment, Communications and National Defence to develop a new form of radar. This radar system, when mounted in planes, will have many applications in coastal and Arctic surveillance and the resource-mapping industries. The company has identified a considerable export market for this improved radar.

The technology fund will be contributing about $2.5 million to the $6.7-million project over three years.

The second award is to Sciex of Thornhill. Sciex, with scientists from the University of Toronto and Perkin-Elmer Corp., will develop new analytical instruments for measuring very small amounts of chemicals. These instruments will be used by the semiconductor, environmental, advanced materials and metals industries. Considerable export potential also exists for these products.

The technology fund will contribute about $17 million to the $34-million project over five years.

The third award is to American Standard of Toronto, which will work in partnership with Spar Aerospace Ltd. of Toronto, Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. of Toronto, IBM Canada Ltd. of Markham and the universities of Toronto and Western Ontario. The company will research new computer-aided design and manufacturing processes involving pressure casting and finishing of industrial ceramics. This will enable American Standard to compete favourably with low-priced imports as well as assist valuable research on new ceramic raw materials and products. It will also lead to a diffusion of these new skills and processes into other areas of the Ontario economy.

The technology fund will be contributing about $3.8 million over four years to the $7.6-million project.

These projects were the subject of extensive assessment by a scientific advisory panel composed of members of the industry, labour and academic communities, as well as representatives from four ministries and the Ontario Development Corp. I would like to thank everyone for their work on these proposals.

I would also like to recognize Dr. Geraldine Kenney-Wallace, chairman of the Science Council of Canada, and Norman Kissick, president of Union Carbide Canada Ltd., who are in the members’ gallery today. Dr. Kenney-Wallace headed the scientific advisory panel to the technology fund assessing these projects, and Mr. Kissick, a member of that panel, has now taken over as panel chairman. Both are members of the Premier’s Council.

I would also like to recognize Dr. Mike Stott, executive vice-president of corporate development for Canadian Astronautics; Jim Reynolds, president of Sciex; and Ron Gaughan, president of American Standard. My congratulations to them all for their excellent proposals.

This money has been committed, subject to the completion of detailed contracts between the government and the various parties. These projects will be continuously monitored and evaluated by my ministry to ensure that there is effective financial control and that the research proceeds as planned. I believe the work we have begun here today will play a valuable role in improving the skills and technology available in the Ontario economy.

But this government is doing much more than just underwriting private sector research and development with these projects. It is building another link with the academic world, research institutions and industry. History tells us that such co-operation usually results in formidable growth of technological innovation.

The contribution of more than $24 million from the technology fund for these projects is further proof of this government’s commitment to ensuring that the province remains a leader in the drive for economic success.

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In the recent speech from the throne, our government announced its intention to establish the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy. This afternoon I wish to inform members of the House of the membership of the new council and the mandate being given to council members.

Our government recognizes that Ontario health care now faces a number of important challenges, among them the challenge to develop appropriate services for a growing elderly population, the challenge to respond effectively to a host of new medical technologies and the challenge to create programs that sustain and promote good health.

Our government also recognizes that health relates not only to the traditional health and health care services; many economic, social and environmental programs can and do have a significant impact on the health status of our population. Our government is moving to respond to these challenges and to create a new concept for healthy public policy in this province.

The Premier’s Council on Health Strategy reflects our commitment at the highest level to examine the policy options and alternatives available to us, policies intended to improve the health and health status of all Ontarians. We will establish our priorities and build a consensus for change in partnership with the providers and recipients of health services, the various ministries of my government and the public at large.

As Premier, I will chair the council, and the Minister of Health (Ms. Caplan) will serve as vice-chairman. Council membership will include individuals with a distinguished background in government, health and related social services, the business community, labour and consumer organizations. In order to fulfil its mandate, the council is initially being asked to do the following:

To select specific goals that will improve health among Ontario residents. The council will establish targets and priorities for those goals so that we can measure and evaluate our progress towards a healthier society.

The council will recommend initiatives in public policy which are beyond the traditional jurisdictions of the health care system, but which will improve the health status of Ontario residents.

The council will identify the initiatives that emphasize health promotion, disease prevention and community alternatives to institutional care.

It will recommend new approaches in health services to promote greater personal responsibility for health, and it will develop the natural linkages between health and all related services and programs.

Finally, the council will advise and assist the Ministry of Health in the allocation of the newly created health innovation fund and it will monitor the performance of projects approved for funding.

In establishing the initial agenda of the council, the Ministry of Health will play a major role in helping to identify the specific issues that will be addressed through this collaborative approach. The Minister of Health will also take every opportunity to include greater public involvement in the ministry’s own internal planning and policy development. This will ensure that the spirit of collaboration and participation is reflected at each level of our decision-making process.

I wish to express my appreciation and thanks to all council members for agreeing to participate. They understand the importance of their new responsibilities on behalf of the people of this province and have pledged to work in a spirit of co-operation and commitment.

The council members are Roy Aitken, executive vice-president of Inco.; the Honourable Jim Bradley, Minister of the Environment; Joe Brown, executive director, Kenora-Rainy River District Health Council; the Honourable Elinor Caplan, Minister of Health; John Carter, president, Greater Niagara General Hospital; James Clancy, president, Ontario Public Service Employees Union; Dr. John Dirks, dean of medicine, University of Toronto; the Honourable Murray Elston, Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet;

Peg Folsom, president, Ontario Public Health Association; Dr. Reva Gerstein, vice-chairman, board of trustees, Hospital for Sick Children; André Girard, member, Cochrane District Health Council; Fred Griffith, chief executive officer, Sault Ste. Marie and District Group Health Association; Robert Hiscock, past chairman, Ontario Hospital Association; the Honourable Chaviva Hošek, Minister of Housing;

Ronald Luciano, president and chief executive officer, Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse; the Honourable Remo Mancini, Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons; Sister Alice McEvoy, administrator, Marianhill, Pembroke; Dr. Stuart McLeod, dean, faculty of health sciences, McMaster University; Neville Nankivell, publisher and editor in chief, the Financial Post;

Anne Opzoomer, faculty of medicine, University of Ottawa; Father Sean O’Sullivan, chairman, Review of Advocacy for Vulnerable Adults; Dr. Andrew Pipe, vice-chairman, Minister’s Advisory Group on Health Promotion; Dr. Naomi Rae-Grant, child and adolescent psychiatrist, Victoria Hospital, London; Eleanor Ross, president, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario; Dr. Miriam Rossi, paediatrician, Hospital for Sick Children;

Dr. Hugh Scully, president, Ontario Medical Association; Mary Shamley, chairman, Association of District Health Council Chairmen; Dr. Robert Spasoff, chairman, Panel on Health Goals for Ontario; the Honourable John Sweeney, Minister of Community and Social Services; Joan Watson, consumer advocate; and the Honourable Mavis Wilson, Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs.

The first meeting of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy will be held on December 10.

COURT FACILITIES

Hon. Mr. Scott: On November 13, 1986, I made a commitment to this assembly to develop and present a strategic plan for the construction, maintenance and repair of courthouse accommodation and facilities in Ontario. I also pledged that, when completed, our determinations and the priorities we had established would be, for the first time in the history of Ontario, a matter of public record.

Today I am pleased to advise the assembly that the analysis and consultation process is complete and that our priorities have been established.

The need for a plan and its development in consultation with courthouse users and the general public became evident to me in my first few months as Attorney General.

I had the opportunity to travel across Ontario to many, if not all of the more than 240 locations in the province where court is regularly conducted. It became clear to me that, in the past, strategies for courthouse renovation and construction had often been a function of local or political pressures and that what was clearly required was a comparison of the needs across the 49 counties and districts in Ontario, a rational attempt to prioritize those needs and a strategic plan for construction and renovation.

In my statement to the assembly last November, I outlined a number of general principles that would guide the ministry in determining our priorities for courthouse construction and renovation. I think a few of them bear repeating today.

First, facilities would be provided only in response to proven need.

Second, the assessment of need for accommodation would form a critical part of the responsibility the ministry bears for the management and administration of the court system.

Third, courtroom utilization would be maximized irrespective of the division of the court to which the facility was originally assigned.

The first step in establishing a strategic plan was to direct the staff of the ministry to prepare profile reports on the 49 counties and districts in Ontario. To prepare those reports, each county or district was visited by ministry staff, often more than once. In the course of those visits, we sought to assess and report on the existing facilities available to the Supreme, district and provincial courts, the present condition of those premises, their present utilization rates, anticipated population growth, anticipated utilization rates in the near- and mid-term and other local factors which bore on the extent to which additional facilities might be required to meet expanding needs.

In the course of preparing those reports, the ministry received much important information and input from a wide variety of local sources to which we are grateful.

Following the completion of a profile report for each district, it was then sent to local users such as judges, bar associations, police forces, municipal authorities and a wide variety of other community groups that had expressed interest in, or that might have been expected to have an interest in, the development of the strategic plan. Comments from these groups were invited. All comments -- and many, many were received -- were thoroughly considered and played a significant

part in the process of the development of the list.

Following a careful analysis of the response of the community groups in each of the counties and districts, and after careful review by the staff and myself, a priority list for courthouse construction and renovation was established.

There will not be time to read them, but I have listed in the statement the criteria that have been established in order to prioritize the assessment.

We have filed with this statement two lists. The first list contains major capital projects. The list sets out the 21 projects that have been assessed as the highest-priority major capital projects at the present time, each of which is estimated to cost over $250,000. The first 10 projects are listed in order of priority. The remaining 11 are set out in alphabetical order. These 11 projects have been selected as priority projects. It would, however, be unrealistic at this time to further prioritize them.

As the first 10 projects near completion, the remaining projects will be reviewed in order to update the priority list. This ongoing review will take into account unexpected changes due to the vicissitudes of the economy, population growth and the impact of court reform. This ongoing review will not necessarily be restricted to projects on the now current list.

It must be emphasized that the implementation of each of the projects on this list will be dependent entirely upon the availability of funds. In an era where fiscal restraint and responsibility is critical, maximum utilization of physical resources will remain a requirement.

The second list sets out renovation, refurbishment and leasehold improvement plans for projects which will take place over the next four years and are expected to cost less than $250,000 each. The order in which these projects will be completed will depend on a number of factors, including the availability of funding and current pressures in the system, as well as negotiations with landlords in the case of expiring leases.

We have attempted in this exercise, undertaken for the first time in a public way in Ontario, to recognize the need that users in each county and district in Ontario have expressed. We have attempted, again in a public way, to compare those competing needs and develop a rational priority and strategic plan. I recognize that the published results will not please everybody in the short term.

Nevertheless, I believe this process and our priority and strategic plan establish a fiscally responsible, prudent

schedule for the construction, renovation and refurbishing of the province’s physical system, designed in the last analysis to assure that the most pressing needs the public consultation process revealed will be addressed on a priority basis. In that way, we can most certainly ensure that the funds provided by taxpayers for courthouse facilities are employed in the best interests of the public and of the administration of justice.

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) recently announced the 1988 overall funding increases for Ontario’s municipalities, colleges and un