Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY /
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Cunningham: I would like to use this occasion, if I could, to correct a misconception that seems to rest with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) and from time to time the Premier (Mr. Davis), which is the illusion that I and my party somehow endorse the operations of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation.

From time to time, Mr. Speaker, we do get to Kingston. It seems to be an annual event. We travel down, usually in a bus. Sometimes I am impressed with the poor conditions, not of the bus but of the highway; last time certainly it seemed a rough and rocky ride.

We go down there and we have a nice meeting with Mr. Foley and Morrison Renfrew, the head technical guy. Some lovely Scandinavian sandwiches are served and we just have a fine time. The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and I usually get a chance to ride the train. It goes around and around; it really is a lot of fun.

Then we concur in giving the government the money, as we are of course going to do today, because we certainly don’t want to have an election based on our lack of confidence in the UTDC. This has been going on now for a long time.

Mr. Haggerty: Too long, Jim.

Mr. Cunningham: In fact as my colleague indicates, it has gone on for too long and there are some of us who are wondering when we are going to see some orders made. If the minister was a travelling salesman and he was as unsuccessful as he has been in getting foreign orders and doing business, I mean real outside-of-Ontario business, I think be would be looking for a new line of work.

I want to say, as well, that I and my party are dedicated to the concept of rapid transit and public transit. We feel, and have felt for a number of years now, that improvements should be made. We endorse the fine GO Transit system, which could be improved, significantly improved; and quite frankly we are quite proud, as I am sure the minister is, of the fine Toronto Transit Commission operation here in the city, which is probably one of the finest transit systems in the world.

What we would suggest is that we might be much further ahead if we were to dedicate the moneys that have been squandered and wasted on the UTDC to the GO system and to more conventional methods of rapid transit assistance, and that includes the smaller municipalities too. People in Ancaster and Dundas in my constituency, for example, require assistance with regard to the operation of buses in that particular area, and that is not uncommon to most smaller municipalities.

As the price of fuel goes up, it is clear that we are going to have to put an even greater emphasis on these areas; I would hope as time goes by we can reallocate moneys that are going to come to the government in windfall situations based on excise tax increases and the normal increase in the cost of gasoline, to the TTC, and other municipal transit operations and also to improving the GO system.

I would be delighted if I learned that Kirk Foley and company were successful in one of their bids. I was informed by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) the latest proposition is Miami and the Miami people are quite impressed. We have heard they are impressed, and we heard people in Saudi Arabia are impressed. Kirk has been all over the world, but so far no orders. It is getting to be like Minaki-on-wheels. You are in so deep --

Mr. Kerrio: Something like the Candu reactor.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You will eat those words.

Mr. Cunningham: I am sure I will. I just don’t know how old I will be.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That’s just like the former leader of the opposition.

Mr. Cunningham: I would just like to be a fly on the wall in one of these cabinet meetings when some of the private enterprise guys in your cabinet, and I believe there are a few left --

Mr Haggerty: Not many.

Mr. Cunningham: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) pops his head up; he probably is in private enterprise. Darcy must be laughing right now, really. I can just see these cabinet meetings, where he comes in and asks for another pile of dough for this Minaki-on-wheels situation. If it was all that hot, the private sector would be doing it; and doing it more effectively, certainly, than Kirk and company.

I would hope the minister would somehow ensure there won’t be an increase in TTC fares this next year, because I am very concerned as a result of this budget tabled by his kissing cousins in Ottawa.

The minister used to complain about the lousy relationship he had with the former administration there; he was one of the first ones to complain about that; and now that relationship is worse than ever with these new guys.

As a result of this new increase on diesel fuel, not only are the trucking companies of Ontario going to be affected, and everybody else who uses diesel fuel, but also the TTC will be affected significantly. That increase will throw their budget somewhat out of whack, maybe to the tune of $3 million or $4 million, which might mean the freeze we were anticipating and hoping for may not result and an increase may have to take place. I hope much of this money which I hope you would reapply will go to the TTC and others.

I’ll conclude by just saying there isn’t any great endorsement, by myself, my leader and maybe the transportation critic for the NDP, for this UTDC operation. I wish it were privatized and in the private sector. There is a far greater argument for privatizing that operation than there is in the case of Petro-Canada. I wish it were successful, but I just don’t know how long we can condone its lack of success and how long the people of Ontario must have to foot the bill for what I call Minaki-on-wheels.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed last night my skills with the knife as your assistant in carving up the ham. I hope the minister doesn’t think I am using the same kind of tactics at this time.

The Liberal transportation critic has dealt with an issue I would like the minister to address himself to; that is the effect of the new federal budget on the Toronto Transit Commission. I would hope one would hear from the minister some definitive promise that the TTC will not be placed in the position because of the diesel fuel situation and because of the tax situation, where fares will have to be increased and ridership will be affected.

I find it interesting that this government has done so little in connecting this ministry with the Ministry of Energy and that so little energy research is actually being done by this ministry. When we look at other countries, we see that by 1981 in Germany buses will be on the road in Berlin running on a perfectly safe and absolutely pollution-free form of fuel called hydrogen.

I find it interesting the ministry only now has started to get together with the Ministry of Energy to hold joint seminars on pooling of information for their staff.

Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable members for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) please hold their conference elsewhere. It must be very disconcerting to the member who has the floor.

Mr. Philip: I wonder how much the minister is aware of the connection between transportation and energy, since there seems to be very little coming out of his ministry in this area, but I won’t belabour that because of the time.

I would like to deal with one issue I am extremely concerned about since it directly affects my riding, and that is the problem we have been talking about in numerous estimates for a long time, the problem of extrication.

The minister will recall the report of the select committee on highway safety tabled by my colleague the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) in September, 1977. It called for a provincial crash rescue program. In December, 1977 the then Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) was apparently familiar with the problem since he had written a letter to the city clerk in Barrie admitting that the objectives of an extrication unit were commendable but suggesting his ministry was not prepared to place such an organization on any kind of legal basis.

It was not until April, 1978 that the present Minister of Transportation and Communications stated he was finally getting together with his colleagues the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) and the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) on this matter. We are informed through various grapevines that there is a report out on this matter, but the minister has not sent that report to the opposition critics in time for us to examine it and deal with it at these estimates. I checked with my office; we have not received it, nor have some of the people in the extrication business or involved volunteers, with whom I have been in touch on the telephone earlier this morning.

Extrication is the job of removing a victim from an accident situation with maximum safety and speed. Accident victims are unnecessarily being turned into cripples, and millions of tax dollars are being wasted, while this government has meetings between the ministries to decide who has responsibility.

That is why I and the Liberal critic accompanied members of the Canadian Rescue Services group when they made their presentation before the interministerial task force on crash rescue on Friday, February 9, 1979. At my urging Mr. Humphries, the assistant deputy minister, agreed to ask the minister for funding for this organization so they could carry out training to those groups across the province that badly needed that kind of training. I am sorry to see this minister turned down that proposal, turned down the request I sent to him through his deputy minister, so that the Simcoe Rescue Squad, that could have been doing a great deal more training, has not been in the position of doing as much as was possible.

[10:15]

Gary Joice, who was associated with that group for a number of years, informed me this morning he had toured the province and found there are a lot of people with a lot of very dangerous equipment on which they are not properly trained. That training could have been accomplished on the assumption that the decision as to which ministry would be responsible to handle it could be made at a later date; surely what was important was that the people who do have equipment and who are using it out there learn how to use it properly.

You just cannot train people in the use of these heavy tools that are being bought by fire departments and by various other groups on a one-day familiarization program, which is all that is being provided by some of the companies that sell some of this equipment. I would hope the minister will inform us immediately what is in that interministerial task force report so that we can deal with it in these estimates.

I would hope, too, that the minister would say that a group such as the Simcoe Rescue Squad, who are pioneers in the field, would get some kind of funds from the government to increase the amount of training with whatever ministry is going to be responsible for it. I would hope the minister would give us some assurance that extrication and the development of extrication experts across the province would be a major priority of this government.

I would hope that the minister, out of some sense of respect and encouragement to the initiative of the Simcoe Rescue Squad, would say that his ministry will pay them for some of the materials and research they have developed over the years. At least if he was to purchase from them some of the manuals on research they have developed, that particular body might not be in the precarious financial position it presently is and might not be threatened the way it is this very day.

I hope the minister can address himself to that, and also to the very serious problem that while this ministry and the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Solicitor General have frittered away their time in numerous meetings trying to decide who gets the responsibility for it, people have been turned into paraplegics and quadraplegics on the road. We’re informed by the brother of the Solicitor General of this province that a quadraplegic costs the taxpayers of Ontario $1.7 million, yet this ministry and its allied ministries in this problem, the Ministry of Health and Ministry of the Solicitor General, can’t see fit to give a few hundred thousand dollars to an organization that has clearly proved its competence and has clearly proved that it has saved lives.

I made one telephone call to Humber College, where they have been doing some training in extrication, and confirmed with Bill Magill, the co-ordinator of the ambulance and emergency program there, in a very objective way that the Simcoe Rescue Squad has definitely saved lives. We know that had this program been developed and expanded when the select committee first brought in its report, lives would have been saved and tax dollars would have been saved.

I think the ministry has a lot to answer for by its delays on this program; not only this ministry but also the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I hope this minister will address himself to that particular issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and it was a very good party last night.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to this motion?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the minister has probably divined the reason I’m participating in this concurrence motion. I think I have raised the consciousness of the minister, and indeed perhaps of my colleagues in the assembly, to the need and the province-wide concern, certainly the concern of Metro, east Toronto and Riverdale, about the lack of a GO-Transit station at Queen Street East and de Grassi Street in Riverdale riding.

Now that the matter has been raised I would like to recall for the minister that one of his predecessors very kindly did a survey study of the area some years ago. The result was that on a cost-benefit analysis it was economically wise to have a station at that location. Unfortunately the decision was not implemented and that area of Toronto does not have a GO station.

The industrialized portion of the Riverdale riding lies astride the main Toronto-Montreal line, the GO train path. There is a significant interchange of population every day, from work place to home from home to work place, within the Riverdale district; people come from different parts of Metro to work in Riverdale during the day and significant numbers of people leave Riverdale to go to work elsewhere. In the vicinity of the industrial part of the Riverdale riding, astride that main line, is a significant residential population.

Because of that I ask the minister, because of the need for people to have the opportunity to substitute public transportation for private transportation, that the ministry would undertake again to resurvey the area and to develop a cost-benefit analysis about the advisability of establishing a station there.

There would be little, if any, capital cost involved in establishing a station because the old de Grassi Street station still stands. The area is ideal for the reactivation of that station. It will not cause any congestion in the area. It may require the provision by the Toronto Transit Commission or by the GO system of one or two feeder buses in order to transfer population from the industrial plants to the GO station, or to assist people leaving the area to get to the train.

But now that the matter has come to the attention of the minister I would specifically ask he take under serious consideration a reassessment of the cost-benefit of the establishment of a station. It would be a boon to the area, and apart from whatever partisan benefit may fall to the New Democratic Party from having instigated it it is essential that station be established to assist not only the riding of Riverdale but also that portion of the riding of St. David which lies east of the Don River valley. I hope the minister would take my request into consideration.

Mr. Warner: It is quite evident to each of us, following the federal budget, that the federal government has little, if any, interest in public transit, since it made no exception to the energy costs which must be absorbed by public transit systems throughout the country. I certainly await the response, a positive one, which I assume will be coming from the government, to the effect that they will attempt to alleviate the serious pressures placed on the transit systems in this province because of the federal action.

It is entirely mind-boggling how a government could say it is going to conserve energy by increasing prices and not alleviate the pressures for public transit systems. Surely the argument is that if we wish to conserve energy by trying to get people to leave their cars at home then we have to make sure public transit systems can operate as efficiently and cheaply as possible so people are encouraged to leave their cars at home and use the public transit system. That would seem to be pretty elementary logic, but I would never accuse the federal government of possessing elementary logic.

I hope this government will respond. I don’t hold out any great hope because of its past track record, but I hope that it will move to protect the 57 public transit systems in this province in a way that would ensure those systems will continue to function well, people will be encouraged to leave their cars at home and use the public transit system so we not only save energy and save fuel but reduce pollution -- and all the other arguments that go in favour of a good public transit system.

The minister is aware of the pitiful public transit system we are faced with in Scarborough, partly because of the policies of this government. Not entirely; I would admit that. The TTC has been most reticent to forge ahead and supply a complete public transit system in the borough, and the municipal politicians can be blamed for not being aggressive enough with the Toronto Transit Commission; but none the less the funding mechanism provided by this province is inadequate; the minister knows that.

My good colleague from Riverdale speaks of a GO station in Riverdale. I can say we require more than a GO station; we require an adequate bus service. It’s more than just the service itself; it is having bus shelters. It is mind-boggling how in 1979 we are capable of putting a man on the moon but we can’t supply a bus shelter. It’s incredible.

The minister has heard the story before, but the weather reminds me of what senior citizens who live in the Glamorgan area of my riding face on a day like this. Those seniors will valiantly attempt to cross Kennedy Road in the face of the onslaught of trucks coming off Highway 401, buses coming south, buses going north, and transport trucks going north, in order to get to the other side of the four lanes of traffic to wait in the cold hoping a bus will come along, and on a day like today it will probably be the best part of half an hour, without a bus shelter.

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable member tell me whether that’s the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications or the Toronto Transit Commission?

Mr. Warner: I certainly admit the MTC would like to shirk its responsibility and pass it off to the TTC. But if it had an interest in protecting those senior citizens in my riding, they would jolly well supply the bus shelters. But they won’t do it. They shirk the responsibility by giving it to TTC that in turn says it’s up to the local municipality that in turn says it’s up to local manufacturers and businesses to supply bus shelters. The result of this shilly-shally is, the seniors who live in my riding shiver in the cold for a bus that may never come. It comes directly back to this government.

In conclusion, I hope the government will make a very positive and dramatic statement regarding how it will move in to solve the serious problem created by the federal government the other night in that disastrous budget, where they have indicated how they are going to abandon any commitment to public transit in this country. Since the energy problem is going to pose a serious threat to public transit systems in this province, I want to know how this government is going to respond to that challenge.

[10:30]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t normally be taking part in this debate, but I want to support my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, and say a few words about what has just been said by my friend from Scarborough-Ellesmere.

I think he does a disservice to the council of the borough of Scarborough when he talks about the lack of bus shelters in Scarborough. I don’t deny there may be one or two that are still needed in areas in his riding, but I want to say that the borough of Scarborough has provided sufficient shelters in the north part of Scarborough so that in some cases we have them on every four corners.

Mr. Warner: There are lots of them in Tory ridings; sure, I concede that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As my friend knows, the mayor of Scarborough certainly doesn’t belong to our party; in fact he’s a card-carrying member of the member’s party. He may not be a card-carrying member, but he has been an adherent, as they say in the United Church, of that party for a long time.

Certainly, when I look around Scarborough, I think they’ve done a fantastic job in supplying bus shelters and I would think given a little more time they will certainly realize the needs there and shelters will be on every corner in Scarborough; to suggest there is a shortage is completely wrong.

The main point I want to make on these estimates, lest the gloom that was presented by one of the members for Scarborough prevails, is that we are very happy, including the mayor of Scarborough, at the support this government is giving to the transit plans which Scarborough places as top priority.

I think it has to be put on the record that in these estimates, and in estimates of this ministry still to come, there is massive financial support; first for the extension of the Bloor-Danforth subway, which will go from Warden Avenue and St. Clair and is now being built up to Kennedy Road and Eglinton; and also, the support of 75 per cent of the capital costs of that extension which is going to be a very significant cost and is a very appreciated addition to that subway system.

I know my friends from the rest of Ontario will probably say we don’t deserve that money here in Metro, but I want to tell them that the people --

Mr. Conway: I’m not that mean-spirited.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I hope not, because that is only the beginning.

The extension of the subway system is only the beginning of what is happening in Scarborough. The development of light rapid transit on controlled-access routes is, of course, the next expansion that will take place supported by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, a program which incidentally, is of top priority to the mayor and the council of the borough of Scarborough. They were very gratified, in a meeting with the Premier (Mr. Davis) about a year ago, when the Premier gave his full support to the development of the light rapid transit line in Scarborough by the Toronto Transit Commission. I pay tribute to the TTC and Metropolitan Toronto council for their pushing of this project also.

So the light rapid transit system, part of it on the right of way of the Canadian National or Via Rail, whichever it’s now known as in that area, will go from the station at the end of the Bloor-Danforth subway at Kennedy and Eglinton, right up to Scarborough town centre, which in 15 or 20 years will probably become one of the major town centre shopping developments in southern Ontario, a heart to the whole borough of Scarborough, a development that will have within it facilities for commercial, recreational and hotel accommodation, as well as the headquarters for the government of the borough of Scarborough. From there light rapid transit will eventually spread out to the north, to the Malvern development, again one of the fine examples of planning this government has carried out. The Malvern housing development will be eventually supported by a light rapid transit system which I hope will eventually turn to the west and come back through the rest of Scarborough, thus providing one of the finest modern transit systems possible.

The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications is supporting these major developments in Scarborough. They are much appreciated by the borough, the council, the members and the people of Scarborough.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to address myself to this morning’s concurrence of supply for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and particularly to the question I raised with the minister on November 29 in relation to public transportation and the present federal policy in establishing guidelines where there is a possibility of fuel shortages and the matter I raised about extending the GO Transit system into other areas in the province outside the Metro core, say to Burlington, Oshawa and Hamilton. I thought perhaps there was a need to extend it to areas in the Niagara Peninsula, London, Owen Sound and other places in Ontario. The minister did mention at the time there was a possible consideration of electrification of the GO rail system. I suppose that relates to the question and some of the comments my colleague previously mentioned on the Urban Transportation Development Corporation light rail.

Is the minister aware of the present American policy that perhaps could pre-empt any further offshore sales of light rail transportation schemes that are developed in Canada? If he is not aware of it, I would tell him the American government says as long as that federal government is paying a proportion of the cost of developing light rail services in communities in the United States plant facilities have to be located in the United States. I am thinking particularly of a Quebec firm, which has a large contract to supply light rail transportation system equipment to the United States, which says it has to move all its technology to the US. The same thing could apply to UTDC if it is talking about doing business in the United States.

I would like to see the minister continue with additional studies in the area of GO Transit bus services to other communities. I know the minister said we could leave it to the private sector to do that, but I don’t think that is good enough. If you look at the Niagara Peninsula particularly, Mr. Speaker, you find different bus companies have franchises which do not actually venture into giving urban services from one community to another. Some of these old franchises are sitting idle, or they can put one bus on just to say they do provide one service a day.

If one looks at the present federal budget as it relates to the cost of petroleum fuels, I think more people will be looking to conservation and efficiency in moving masses of people so this government is going to have to move towards the provision of urban transit facilities from one locality to another. We cannot allow these franchises to sit there idle, as we have in many cases.

I notice, too, that perhaps there isn’t sufficient funding for purchases of buses for the GO-Transit system, because apparently they have been renting or making use of the buses from Gray Coach Lines Limited and eventually they have to go out and rent buses from some other private transportation company in the municipality. That indicates there may be some municipalities that have too much unused equipment around.

As long as the government is paying 50 per cent, I think that’s the figure, on capital outlay for purchase of buses by municipalities, maybe it should be taking a close look at this to ensure that they are not purchasing --

Hon. Mr. Snow: What percentage?

Mr. Haggerty: I thought you spent 50 per cent to purchase a bus. Is it higher than that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Seventy-five per cent.

Mr. Haggerty: I am glad to hear that. The minister may feel too much equipment has been purchased and there is idle equipment. This is indicated by the fact that the present shortages experienced by GO Transit can be met with sufficient buses from Gray Coach which in turn can make use of other buses from other transportation systems along the line. I suggest we have overspent in some areas and did not spend enough in others.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We don’t subsidize Gray Coach’s buses.

Mr. Haggerty: No, I am afraid the minister doesn’t --

Mr. Kerrio: You don’t have to. It is a money maker.

Mr. Haggerty: -- but a day is going to come --

Mr. Kerrio: One of the few you have.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s right, a day is going to come. If I can recall the special report on the Gray Coach’s problems a couple of years ago that related to Greyhound and Gray Coach battles to get certain routes in Ontario, there were some good comments that suggested they should be expanding their services to other urban areas in Ontario. With this high cost of energy before us now, and more later on, it is going to cost more yet to get people moved in large numbers by buses or by light rail. There should be some direction from the ministry on special studies in this area.

One of the better ways to travel is by bus, but I am afraid in the Niagara Peninsula there isn’t sufficient service now. Gray Coach, or some other bus company that has the franchise from one municipality to another, should be expanding that service in conjunction with GO Transit. Maybe you should even be looking to provide GO services directly to St. Catharines and Niagara Falls, perhaps by light rail, with major connections in Hamilton to continue on to Toronto and make connections there.

It is a broad area, and your ministry will have to be more involved in the mass movement of people, through either public transportation or in conjunction with the private sector. I bring that to the minister’s attention. I can see he is going to have to move in this area; I hope he starts moving now.

Mr. Nixon: Just irresistible, isn’t it?

Mr. McClellan: It really is. Once it turns into a roundelay like this it is almost impossible to stay out of it.

I will ask the minister if he will deal with an aspect of his government’s discombobulated transportation policy as it affects Metropolitan Toronto, an aspect which has to do with all the unresolved bits and pieces of broken or unfulfilled promises that relate to the Spadina expressway extension on the one hand and the Spadina subway on the other.

We are beginning to see the private automobile zanies in the northernmost regions reviving their campaigns on behalf of the private automobile and for the extension of the expressway system south, to the detriment of the public transportation system and the Spadina subway in particular. The ministry, as usual, has retreated into its cocoon and is lying low.

If I could have even a modicum of the minister’s attention, there are important issues in front of the government that have to do with park-and-ride facilities to enable the Spadina subway to become functional instead of a $200 million white elephant still unused during peak rush hour periods. Second is the matter of the widening of Bathurst Street which is currently before the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, which is why I raise it here.

[10:45]

The pro private automobile zanies in the northernmost regions are trying to extend the expressway system by degrees, as they have in the past. The latest ploy is to attempt to widen Bathurst Street to funnel the traffic from the Allen Expressway that much farther south. It would run in direct competition to the $200 million public subway that is basically parallel to this most undesirable expressway.

I would like to know two things. When does the minister intend to honour his promises and commitments and implement the park-and-ride facilities north of Eglinton; and when does he intend to deal with the question of the widening of Bathurst Street? I’m sure I can speak on behalf of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick in expressing the hope that the widening will be opposed so that we won’t have one more encroachment of the expressway system at the expense of public transportation; and that we’ll have, at long last, the honouring of a commitment made as far back as 1971. Otherwise, do we have to wait until the next election before the minister unveils the latest instalment of these seemingly perpetual promises in aid of the public transit system in Metropolitan Toronto? Why doesn’t the minister tell us right now what it is he intends to do with respect to unfulfilled promises of aid for public transit?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Just find one.

Mr. McClellan: Perhaps the minister could answer more audibly when he gets to his feet.

I have one other question on behalf of the member for Etobicoke, who has already spoken. He asked me to ask the minister whether he will be present at the resources development committee meeting this evening at 7 p.m. for the discussion of the committee report on the inquiry into the Ontario Highway Transport Board. His presence would be received with open arms, I gather, on behalf of the committee.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’d like to comment on some of the remarks that have been made by the honourable members. It is interesting to see that the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) is still showing a lack of confidence in one of the greatest transportation developments in the world today; that is the one being carried out by the Urban Transportation Development Corporation.

The member’s lack of confidence in that development really surprises me. He certainly knows about and I’m sure he understands the system and the success of the research and development project that has been carried out. His leader keeps talking about research and development; certainly this has to he one of the most successful programs in many years.

Mr. Cunningham: And expensive.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Certainly it costs some money, we know that. When the member talks about the $50 million to $60 million that has been spent by UTDC on research and development in the last five years he should compare that to a couple of hundred million dollars perhaps that de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited is going to spend in the next two or three years to develop the Dash 8, or the $150 million they’ve spent in the last few years to develop the Dash 7. One doesn’t develop --

Mr. Cunningham: And they’re selling.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Just wait. One doesn’t develop these things without spending money; one doesn’t do it by rhetoric, sitting over there on the other side of the House complaining and talking doom and gloom.

Mr. Cunningham: What have you sold?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Just wait and see. Mr. Speaker, I think the Urban Transportation Development Corporation and this government are going ahead with research and development on electrically powered transit vehicles, both light rail vehicles and intermediate capacity transit systems. That type of research was started at the right time. We are many years ahead of the United States and other countries in this development. The people who are criticizing it will have to eat their words very soon.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The Miami bid hasn’t been called yet. The member knows that; why does he ask stupid questions?

Mr. Cunningham: When are you going to sell it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: He just keeps asking stupid questions every day; just wait and see.

There has been no money squandered and wasted, as the honourable member says, by UTDC. He will find that every dollar spent on research and development is going to prove to have been very well spent.

At a time when there is an oil shortage, when we have an opportunity to move in with electrically powered transit, we have the technology now, at the right time to implement it where other jurisdictions and other countries do not.

Mr. Cunningham: Like the Swiss and the Germans. We are years behind of them.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The honourable member talked about Ancaster and Dundas. I don’t know of any problem in Ancaster and Dundas. If there is a transit problem in Ancaster and Dundas, for God’s sake tell me; I don’t know, Ancaster and Dundas haven’t told me they have a problem.

Mr. Nixon: Well he’s their member; he is elected to speak for them.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He hasn’t told me they have a problem.

Mr. Nixon: He did this morning.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, he didn’t. He just complained about something with a vague reference to Ancaster and Dundas. I suppose he is going to send a copy of Hansard to the local paper.

There has been discussion by several members about the role of the Toronto Transit Commission and TTC fares. Recently I sent a letter to the mayor of every community that operates a transit system in the province advising them of our funding policy for 1980.

Mr. Kerrio: You should have been in charge of the Arrow. We would still be making it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, if I had been in charge of the Arrow it wouldn’t have been scrapped, I will tell the honourable member that.

Mr. Kerrio: Tories are different in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It wouldn’t have been scrapped. We would have been building them now instead of looking around to buy something offshore. The Toronto Transit Commission has been mentioned by several members. There is no doubt about it; the TTC is one of the greatest transit authorities in the world. People come from all over the world to look at the TTC system. It is a credit to Metropolitan Toronto and it is a credit to this government, because that system wouldn’t be what it is today if it weren’t for the massive funding we put into the TTC system.

Certainly the fuel increases which are going to be brought about over the next few years are going to have an effect on the TTC. I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, the comments I have had from the chairman of Metro, from the chairman of the TTC and from the chief general manager of the TTC with regard to our revised funding formula for all transit authorities have been nothing but complementary. They have told me privately, unfortunately they don’t seem to be saying it publicly but it is part of the business, that the new funding proposals we have put forward will mean there will certainly be no TTC fare increases in the coming year.

We heard doom and gloom from that side of the House last year about how the TTC was going down the drain, their ridership was going down. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, you saw in the paper the other day where they have -- I don’t know how many million more riders this year than they anticipated; and they have $6 million additional income they didn’t anticipate.

Mr. McClellan: No thanks to you.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This is what we anticipated and it has worked out the way we thought it was going to work out. It is just ridiculous that some of the people in this chamber keep criticizing and preaching doom and gloom about the transit systems in this province. We, in Ontario certainly have, without a doubt, the most generous and well thought out transit policies with our municipalities of any jurisdiction in North America.

Ridership, as I said, is up on our transit systems. The member for Etobicoke mentioned transportation energy research. Certainly we are doing research. We have a very active program with the Ministry of Energy we have had going on for a number of years.

Mr. Philip: So active you won’t even let me into a meeting you had with them.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Now, just a minute. The member said we wouldn’t let him into a meeting. To my knowledge he never made a request to attend the meeting.

Mr. Philip: Certainly our research officers did, and you wouldn’t let me in on the press --

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) got onto his extrication speech again. I know he wants to send out a press release that he has made this speech. He knows very well where the program stands now. He knows very well, I have told him, that my ministry, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, have been working on an interministerial task force. The report is at the printers. The report I expect to have any day is outside of my hands; it’s being prepared by the Solicitor General. I haven’t seen it, but the minute the report is ready it will be presented to the members.

Mr. Philip: You mean you don’t know what’s in it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have not been frittering away time on this program. It is a new program.

Mr. Philip: Tell that to some of the wheelchair victims.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The honourable member likes to elaborate; he likes to exaggerate. I can’t answer those kinds of irresponsible comments. Irresponsible comments are all they are.

The member for Riverdale, of course, discussed our perennial project, the de Grassi Street GO station. We are obviously continually reviewing our GO Transit program and improving.

Mr. Philip: Are you going to send a Christmas card to the wheelchair victims?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Next year I will leave the honourable member off my list, that’s for sure.

Mr. McClellan: Is that a promise? Why don’t you leave me off your list, too?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, and him too. In fact, I will leave all the socialists off, because really, God almighty, it’s just a waste of hospitality. Not you, Mr. Speaker, because of course you are one of us.

Mr. Martel: I think you should refute that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ziemba: Rise on a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I didn’t necessarily mean by political stripe, but by philosophy and thought and deed, Mr. Speaker, that is what I was referring to.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) again made a lot of irresponsible comments.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the member for Riverdale, Mr. Renwick: In all of that interchange I missed what the minister said about the one important matter in this concurrence vote.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I missed that. At the moment we again have no plans for the installation of a station at this time at de Grassi Street, but as I said we are continually reviewing GO Transit plans and that is part of our review.

Mr. Renwick: The minister won’t mind if I raise it again from time to time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I will be very disappointed if the member doesn’t raise it again when my estimates come back before the House, early after the new year I expect.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere criticized our transit policies. I think my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, answered most of those criticisms, most of those inaccuracies, very well.

Bus shelters, that’s another interesting point. Bus shelters are the responsibility of the Toronto Transit Commission. We subsidize --

Mr. Warner: Oh, here we go.

[11:00]

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the member thinks my ministry is going to go out building bus shelters on corners in Scarborough he has another think coming.

Mr. Warner: I don’t expect you to do anything.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We subsidize Metropolitan Toronto for 75 per cent of its transit capital. If he has any complaints about where a bus shelter is located he had better see his friends at Metro.

Nothing but doom and gloom comes from that member. He likes to run our transit system into the ground, the best one in the world.

Mr. Warner: No. I asked you how you were going to respond to the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It was interesting. Yesterday I had a visit from the new commercial representative of the consulate of France. He has only been in this country a few months now representing France, and he said the greatest impression he had in coming to Toronto was our wonderful transit system.

He talked about the subway, the new streetcars, the GO system; he was very impressed with the transit system we have developed in this country.

The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) again mentioned the expansion of the GO system to the Niagara Peninsula. As I mentioned, we are doing a review of our total GO Transit system legislation and policies. It’s a little better than five years since the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority was formed; I have asked my deputy minister and senior staff to work with the GO Transit board of directors to do a review of our operations after a very successful program over the past five years.

I don’t want to lead the member for Erie to believe we’re going to expand GO Transit to Owen Sound, London or Niagara Falls because that is not the role of GO Transit. GO Transit is a commuter system. He’s talking about an intercity service, which is being very badly handled by the private sector.

GO Transit is now offering over 160 buses. That is a tremendous fleet of buses developed over the past eight or 10 years. We are taking delivery early in the new year of six new Orion buses from Ontario Bus Industries in Mississauga that has developed this new bus on which TATOA will be taking delivery very soon.

The member for Bellwoods’ comments about the Spadina expressway and unfulfilled promises don’t really deserve an answer, because he didn’t really come up with one promise not fulfilled by this government.

Mr. McClellan: We can park in your letterbox, can we?

Hon. Mr. Snow: On the park-and-ride facility, there is correspondence on file. I can tell the member exactly what the situation is. We have offered the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto 75 per cent capital subsidy to build the park-and-ride facility.

We’ve done a study in co-operation with Metro and made recommendations where we think the park-and-ride facility should be built. Metro Toronto has not, to my knowledge, made one move to implement any plan for that facility or to take advantage of our offer of 75 per cent funding.

My ministry is not going to go in and build that parking facility at the subway; that is the role of Metro Toronto. When Metro decides to build it we are committed to supply the funding.

To my knowledge, there are no outstanding unfulfilled promises to Metro Toronto or to any other municipality in this province with regard to their transit systems.

Mr. Speaker: The resolution before the House is for concurrence of supply for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

Resolution concurred in.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Mr. Nixon: I wanted to bring to the attention of Mr. Speaker and the minister my concern that the government policy dealing with beer and liquor advertising has not been fulfilled. The present minister is already shaking his head, but he knows very well that his predecessor made a commitment to this House that there would be substantial reductions, if not abolition, and control of the beer advertising that I believe is putting undue pressures on the youngest groups in the community to expand the drinking of beer.

Mr. Speaker, you perhaps are in a position to know that I am not speaking from the position of a teetotaller, far from it, but I do believe that the pressure put on young people by the lifestyle advertising in support of beer in this country is unfair and that it is our responsibility, as members of the Legislature, to reduce it and, in my view, abolish it.

I have been impressed over the years with the advocacy advertising of some of the distilleries. Seagram’s, coming from -- we won’t talk about their background particularly, but whatever it is, at least Seagram’s in their advocacy advertising is preaching moderation.

Hon. Mr. Drea: All of them do.

Mr. Nixon: All I can do is report to you, Mr. Speaker, as a person who looks at the ads, glances at them, the impression that they make on me. Certainly in the December issues of most of the magazines the distilleries have the major part of the advertising and it doesn’t look like advocacy, in-moderation advertising to me, with the twinkling Christmas trees and the roaring fires and the lovely ladies sipping away at the good stuff, with the gentlemen leering down their decolletage.

Mr. Ashe: What’s that? Describe that.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t know. It means if you drink enough you will get lucky.

So from the minister’s interjection saying that all of the distilleries are practising advocacy advertising, I can only presume that the advocacy they are pushing is the advocacy of buying more of their product.

From my very cursory observation of the distillers’ ads, I say that Seagram’s is by far the best, because it isn’t just some kind of a bow to moderation. There is a strong impact, a very strong impact indeed, showing by way of specific examples what happens to people who have all of the very best opportunities, by education and everything else, but lose those opportunities through immoderate use of liquor.

I don’t think there are many people in this House now who advocate -- although there once was a day when it was advocated -- that we abolish the use of liquor. Obviously, it is not possible and I don’t think it would be a proper thing. I would resent it myself, and the people I speak for would resent it.

I also resent, however, the heavy, lifestyle advocacy of the use of beer by young people, the implication being that it makes them better sportsmen, better people, probably better lovers. The implication is there and I believe those ads are injurious to the community.

I would also say, just as an aside, that they are some of the cleverest and most attractive television ads that we look at; there is no doubt about that. The people are carefully selected to represent the very best of the athletic, good-looking young people who are living a lifestyle that all young people would like to emulate. The message is clearly there that in order to live that lifestyle you have to use the product that is being advertised.

I would also say that some of the brewers are committing a good deal of money to the support of sporting activities and so on. I don’t have too much of an objection to that, particularly since they are restricted from supporting sporting activities involving people younger than about 18 or 19.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s not true.

Mr. Nixon: It may not be true, but Labatt’s, which was going to support a hockey dinner in my constituency to entertain visiting Norwegian hockey players, withdrew from it when they found the hockey players were going to be below drinking age. I thought that was a good thing.

Frankly, I do find it a bit offensive that the beer advertisers are so directly associated with hockey and football and all of the other games. The association between a very natural, competitive spirit, something that is probably stronger in Canada than in most other countries, the association between that and the support of the breweries I find somewhat offensive.

Mr. Speaker, I have not provided myself with the quotes of the previous Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Grossman) who made a commitment publicly that this advertising was going to be controlled, but by that we understood reduced, and even eliminated. All we know is, the pressure of these ads has increased. We are very concerned that the present minister is not following up enunciated government policy, and for one I am concerned and disappointed.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is not true and you know it.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, may I say in response to the interjections that I do not know it. I know what I see on the television. I know what the previous minister said in this House, and I do not feel that the present minister is fulfilling that commitment.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I take the gravest exception to that. You keep repeating it, and it is not true.

Mr. Nixon: Well that’s fine, Mr. Speaker, but just as a point of order I would say to you, and to the minister through you, that we are in a debating parliament. I am putting forward my views and he will have every opportunity to put his forward. Why can’t he wait until I have completed mine? Certainly we want to discuss this matter in a moderate way. Why can’t the minister do that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Then say it the way it is.

Mr. Nixon: The next thing he is going to do is offer to take me out behind the Legislature and black my eye. That is the way he usually tries to settle these arguments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want that remark withdrawn. I did no such thing.

Mr. Nixon: Does the minister mean to say he has never made such an offer before? Does he deny it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, I have never threatened the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, and I want that remark withdrawn.

Mr. Nixon: I can certainly say that he never has, because he has more sense than to do that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I want that remark withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A point of privilege was brought to my attention. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk did state, as I understand it, that the minister had made such a remark regarding another member.

Mr. Nixon: I said the next thing he will do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wonder if the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would like to reorganize those remarks and withdraw.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to, but on your instruction I do.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, can I have the option of promoting this bout? Mr. Hoy and I would like to promote it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any further comments? The member for Etobicoke.

Mr. Philip: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak on the estimates of this ministry.

The first matter I would like to deal with is the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada home warranty program. It seems to me we have proven over and over again that this program simply is not working. It is slow; it is a constant harassment to try and get any kind of action out of the program.

I have here just one folder on one case. This has been going on since June 1979. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Simpson, executive director of the business practices division. I know he has done his utmost to try and get action for me in this case. I don’t think my comments in any way reflect on him or his ability, because he is certainly dedicated to trying to protect the consumer. But I ask the minister why it is that MPPs have to write letter after letter. Why is it that a talented public employee like Mr. Simpson has to involve himself in the serious but petty disputes between a bunch of my constituents and a developer, and still no action is taken to get remedy for the people on New Lovecourt, a rather inappropriate name, in Rexdale?

[11:15]

We are talking about people in 10 or 12 houses, people who have spent anywhere from $125,000 to $150,000. In many cases it involves two and three families frying to raise that money to put the down payment on a home. Many of them do not have English as their first language in terms of writing and speaking, yet they are still faced with the very problems that I brought to the minister’s attention and to the HUDAC home warranty program’s attention in June, 1979.

I and other MPPs have gone through this process over and over again. The only way we seem to get results out of this government in terms of protection for the new home buyer is to go to the press. In a similar incident in Rexdale I had to have pictures of myself and one of the home buyers on a mound of earth a year and a half after we first reported the initial difficulty to get any kind of action for the consumers.

Here we are with just one other case. Despite all the time I have spent, all of the meetings I have had with the owners, all of my phone calls and letters to Mr. Simpson and the various people at the HUDAC home warranty program, many of the complaints are still outstanding. I say to the minister when we have that kind of system, when we tie up elected representatives’ time that much, when we tie up key civil servants, and public employees’ time that much, the program simply isn’t working.

I would also like to deal with the problem of Condominium Ontario. I read with interest a statement by Michael Armstrong, public relations director with Condominium Ontario. In the November 8 issue of the Etobicoke Gazette Mr. Armstrong said that he found my attack on Gordon Batchelor, president of Condominium Ontario, during the inquiry in the justice committee, of which I am chairman, to be offensive. This attack was made during the inquiry of the justice committee into the operations of Condominium Ontario, an organization which has been imposed on condominium owners without their request and for which they are now going to be charged an extra levy.

I would like to tell the minister I find it offensive that it was necessary for me to interrogate Mr. Batchelor and the minister for two hours on the workings of this organization, which is initially funded by over half a million dollars of the taxpayers’ money. I am sure the taxpayers will find it equally offensive that an organization which pays Mr. Armstrong’s salary has admitted that staff people were hired without advertising positions, and that the president of Condominium Ontario interrogated board members to find out who had actually leaked the minutes of this publicly-financed body to the press.

I am sure that the taxpayers will find it offensive that the president of our own association, the Etobicoke Condominium Association, Mr. Terry Littlefield, was forced from the board of Condominium Ontario because he had the courage to voice the opinions of those people who had elected him as president of the Etobicoke Condominium Association, even though those opinions happened to disagree with the views of the minister and of the previous minister, and the views of Condominium Ontario.

They will find it offensive that Condominium Ontario actually took a vote by making every director sign his name on a ballot, and that this procedure was justified by the public relations office, Mr. Armstrong’s office at Condominium Ontario, by claiming that it was covered under the Corporations Act. That matter was later exposed to be nonsense when the president of Condominium Ontario couldn’t show me anything in the Corporations Act that in any way justified that kind of undemocratic and arbitrary action.

I’m sure the taxpayers will also find it offensive that Mr. Armstrong sends out, at taxpayers expense, propaganda directly on behalf of Condominium Ontario and in- directly on behalf of the Ontario government to condominium boards across the province. These lists to condominium corporations, prepared at taxpayers expense, are not available to people such as Terry Littlefield, president of the Etobicoke Condominium Association, and others in the condominium association, including myself, who may have views differing from Condominium Ontario and the government.

I regret Mr. Armstrong’s salary is paid, at least initially, by the taxpayers and that he finds it offensive that I as an MPP continue to expose the secretive and manipulative way Condominium Ontario works on behalf of the government and not on behalf of condominium owners in this province.

On November 13 I wrote to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, thanking him for supplying me with some of the minutes of the meetings of the board of directors of Condominium Ontario to members of the justice committee.

Unfortunately, however, Mr. Armstrong, who sent the material, failed to include the minutes of the October meeting. No doubt this was an oversight, but we have yet to receive them. In my letter of November 13 to the minister I asked him if I would be receiving those. I also asked him to advise me of what position he was taking on future minutes of Condominium Ontario and whether they would be made public, both to the press such as the Condominium Newspaper, and to members of the Legislature and people like myself who are interested in these matters.

I haven’t received a reply from the minister. I’d like to know his position on that. Since he is the one responsible for Condominium Ontario and initial financing of it he has a certain responsibility in terms of the secrecy or lack of it, or the openness with which this organization may operate.

Those are some of the issues I am concerned about. I’m also concerned about correspondence to the minister, and which I spoke to Mr. Kumer, about concerning the problem of Etobicoke residents and other residents in the city who are denied access to cable TV service by certain landlords.

This matter was brought to my attention by people living at 2548 Kipling Avenue in Rexdale. Upon investigation, however, I discovered other buildings in the borough of Etobicoke, not necessarily the riding of Etobicoke, are not receiving cable TV for similar reasons. These include 186 Stevenson Drive and several other buildings. Maclean-Hunter Cable TV Limited similarly reported they’d been refused by owners in the Lakeshore area access to certain buildings in the ridings of either York West or Humber, but none the less elsewhere in the borough of Etobicoke.

I believe the tenants have a right to information delivery through a cable in the same way they have a right to access to information delivered via the post office or by parcel delivery service. To deny them this access is to deny them a basic right to information. In the case of 2548 Kipling Avenue, Rogers Cable demonstrated over 50 per cent of the tenants were interested in cable service, even though an aerial system was available to them free of charge. It was simply a matter that one of the owners, who is very proud of his building, and I must admit has been a reasonable landlord in other matters, for whatever sentimental reasons simply doesn’t want a cable running through his building, even though it was demonstrated to this particular individual by taking him to other buildings that there would be no defacing of any significance and even though the company carries insurance up to $1 million to cover such circumstances.

I understand from Rogers that the situation in my riding is going to be fixed up. They now have another meeting with that landlord and they expect they will reach some kind of an agreement, hopefully this week. However, this doesn’t remove the problem. The problem is that surely tenants should have a right to access to cable TV if they are able to negotiate privately with the local cable company to have that kind of service delivered to them.

I sent the minister a draft of an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act which I propose. I recognize that it stands a much better chance of seeing the light of day if the minister introduces it and that is why I didn’t introduce it directly in the House, although I will be happy to do so as a private member’s bill if there is no action on the part of the government. I hope the minister will respond to some of the correspondence I have sent him on this particular issue because I know the various officers in his ministry are concerned and recognize that it is a problem.

Mr. Gaunt: I just want to raise briefly with the minister a matter that gives me some concern. I have a company in my constituency named Bainton Limited. They operate a wholesale and retail outlet for leather coats and jackets and leather goods of all types. They also have a tanning operation associated with that retail and wholesale business.

There arose a problem about two or three years ago when a chap came into town and set up a similar business and called himself The Tanner from Blyth. It was a style name, I gather. It was registered as such on February 15, 1978. The same gentleman has in total six different style names, all of which were registered at different times, such as Leather City and Suit Shop and that kind of thing.

What has happened is that Bainton Limited put this chap out of business in Blyth, where Bainton Limited is located. The other gentleman simply couldn’t compete. He moved out of town and he moved to London, where he set up a similar business, and he is calling himself The Tanner from Blyth.

He apparently can’t compete any better in London than he could in Blyth and he is going out of business. He is telling everyone within earshot that the Tanner from Blyth is going out of business and of course they are associating that with my constituent’s company, Bainton Limited. The company is receiving telephone calls saying: “I hear you are going out of business. What’s wrong? You have been in business for so many years.”

This is a long-established company. I stand to be corrected on this, but I think it has been in business for well over 60 years in total and it has had a good reputation in the market. People from the United States come up and buy leather goods, coats, jackets, gloves, all sorts of leather goods, at this establishment and they have developed almost an international reputation which they now feel is being blighted by the operation of this other gentleman.

[11:30]

I have discussed this matter with the ministry officials at various times. I have made the point that the use of the style name The Tanner from Blyth is misleading, deceptive, and certainly as far as Bainton Limited is concerned very disruptive. I am told the other gentleman has not violated in any strict legal sense any of the provincial acts, either the Corporations Act or the Business Practices Act, and that the only possible action is for Bainton Limited to discuss this matter with their lawyer and perhaps go after the person whom they consider to be the offender under the common-law passing-off action.

Well, Bainton Limited isn’t inclined to do that. They don’t think they should have to go to that extent. I just quote a portion of the letter I received from the president of that firm under date of November 26, 1979. He says: “I feel that if our government will allow such shysters to infringe of any business, let alone an old-established one such as ours, it is time for us to discontinue our factory outlet here in Blyth.”

He also indicated in the same letter that the federal, provincial, personal and corporation tax either paid or to be paid for the year 1979 will amount to $365,733. That doesn’t include the payroll. In other words, it doesn’t involve the people who are employed there and the income tax those people would pay.

I just indicate that to the minister to point out that this is a well-established business; it is a good business; it is a business that has been there for a long time, very reputable, with good people operating it. Here we have someone coming in, almost a fly-by-nighter, and disrupting a business of this nature to this extent.

I just thought I would raise it with the minister. Perhaps there isn’t anything legally that can be done. The latest conversation I had with Mr. Simpson was that Mr. Bainton should come down when he is next in the city and Mr. Simpson, along with myself, could sit down and review this whole matter to see if anything could be done. As of the moment that hasn’t been done. I hope it will be. I would like the minister’s comments.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I just have two very brief matters I would like to raise with the minister. The first matter is I am not aware the ministry has put out any pamphlet in an explanatory sense about the computer pricing mechanism that is coming into force at the various chain stores -- I think there is some shorthand phrase for the strips that appear on all of the products now and the method by which that pricing is going to take place.

It may be the ministry has put out to the public an explanatory memorandum or an explanatory brochure on a couple of sheets to tell us what it is all about. I don’t understand it; I know very few people who do understand it. I would suggest to the minister it might be a very useful pamphlet to have available for people so that they could begin to understand what is taking place at the cash registers in the supermarkets under this new system of pricing -- more by way of explanation than as an argumentative value judgement, simply so people will understand.

The second matter which is of continuing concern to me is the delay in the ministry’s introduction of legislation dealing with the fundamental questions of consumer warranties. I do not understand why we have gone through so much in the fashions of consumerism in this province, yet we have continued delay in implementing all of the work which has been done leading up to a modernized revision of the consumer warranty legislation. I think it is an essential part of the basic protection of consumers in this province. I would hope the next session of the assembly would give us an opportunity to see that bill, to debate it, discuss it, hear what people have to say about it and have it enacted into law. I hope the minister would take those two matters under consideration and comment about them.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to address myself to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on his estimates as they relate to a particular tax base for the province and that is horse racing, which comes under the minister’s jurisdiction.

I am concerned about the possibility that the Fort Erie racetrack may eventually close its doors. There is some indication by the president of the Ontario Jockey Club that consideration will be given to the possibilities of phasing out this racetrack. If it does occur, and I hope it doesn’t, this means there will be two racetracks within the Niagara region that have been phased out through difficulties of operation.

There are some difficulties within the horse racing industry in the province, but if we look at the operations in the town of Fort Erie it is one of the best, and perhaps the best dressed, track in North America. It would be rather a regret in this particular community if the doors were to close.

Mr. Kerrio: It’s not just the sport of kings.

Mr. Haggerty: No, it’s not the sport of kings. This is one of the major tourist attractions, one might say, in Ontario, and a major industry to the town of Fort Erie. It generates some $300,000 a year in municipal taxes alone. It creates a number of jobs for about four to six months a year, and there is quite a spinoff to other service industries within the town, the hotels, motels and other areas of accommodation for persons employed at the track.

I was interested in reading the Harness Tracks of Ontario brief opposing offtrack betting. The area I want to discuss with the minister is his ministry’s position regarding offtrack betting in Ontario.

In their brief to the members of Parliament, that’s the federal government, and to the Legislative Assembly in Ontario, they say, “The pari mutuel dollars are already too heavily taxed to make the ‘horse industry’ able to afford the cost of a new partner, offtrack betting, in many minds.” They do discuss some of the areas in harness tracks where they agree that the solution is not offtrack betting. Their solution is “an immediate additional two per cent commission payable to track operators, plus a revision to the scale of commissions paid to the track operators, which in turn would be paid immediately to participating horsemen on track who produce the races, and in turn flows through the breeding industry which raises the horses, both thoroughbred and standardbred. The federal government is in a position to legislate this law immediately, with no risk to anyone, and the amount of money gained will far exceed any anticipated gains derived from offtrack betting.”

I am sure the minister is aware 0f the offtrack betting in New York state, which hasn’t been that great a success. It hasn’t moved the bookies off the street, because the revenue is still generated in sports betting. That is the biggest area and why the bookies are still there. I suppose if we enter into offtrack betting in Ontario we will still have the bookies on the street wagering on sports. The minister shakes his head and says no. Then perhaps he is considering bringing in legislation that would include what -- dog racing?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, never.

Mr. Haggerty: Not dog racing; perhaps wagering in sports then? I don’t know what he means if he says no. One minute he is for it and the next minute he is against it. I bring it to his attention because there is a problem here. I brought it to the attention of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) in his estimates. I brought it to the attention of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). It’s time the cabinet took a second look in a new direction, because if we do go to offtrack betting it will eventually lead to all the races being run in the southern part of the United States.

The lobby and pressure that can be brought upon this government will lead that way. I don’t think we can afford to have any more closing of racetracks in Ontario, in particular, in the Niagara Peninsula. With the additional revenue the minister has accumulated over the last two or three years, about $37 billion to almost $50 billion this year, maybe a little bit of that should be added to the purses at tracks which don’t --

Hon. Mr. Drea: We do.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, but not high enough. It has to be higher to encourage a stable industry in Ontario. The minister can see it coming, so I suggest an increase to offset some of the low purses at tracks that don’t draw the crowd for wagering. This is one area in which he should consider upgrading it a little, giving a little bit more to encourage it.

With proper advertising by the industry and by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, we can make Fort Erie a viable racing community and racetrack in Ontario, in fact in Canada. The minister has to take a second look to see we do not have any more closures. The industries depend so much on it, even the horse breeders and owners. It creates jobs from the spinoff.

It is something that should be looked at very closely. I’ve read suggestions that advertisers should be permitted to kick in funding for certain purses at the racetrack. They’ve tried it, but maybe a little more encouragement from other industries may assist in certain areas. It’s an area the minister is going to have to take a close look at. I hope this ministry would give consideration to my comments as the representative of the mayor of Fort Erie.

Mr. Warner: There are a couple of matters I’d like to raise, Mr. Speaker.

One is regarding aluminium wiring. The ministry, in response to the report tabled by Dr. Tuzo Wilson, had established -- I can’t remember the correct title for it; it was a hotline in a centre.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Aluminium wiring and resource centre.

Mr. Warner: Aluminium wiring and resource centre; thanks. That has been established and it has been in business for a little while now. I’m wondering if there has been a report from that centre as to their activities and what they have been able to discern while they’ve been in operation as to the extent of the problems and so on.

Second, has there been a decision about the repair where problems have been identified, where a consumer phones in and says, “Yes, I have a problem. Here’s what it is.” Has there been a decision on whether the government will pay for that repair?

I am still not very pleased with the government response over the aluminium wiring issue. From the outset it was quite evident there were problems. When you look at the Tuzo Wilson report very carefully it says yes, there are problems with aluminium wiring but not serious enough to ban it. There are problems, but Dr. Wilson plays them down a bit.

[11:45J

The evidence compiled in the United States says the problems are serious enough, that we should take direct action. Fortunately, at least one part of the government did take direct action. Ontario Housing Corporation refused to use aluminum wiring in any of its new projects. I will say that I appreciated the action by Ontario Housing in my own riding. When they discovered a problem with wiring in one of their apartment buildings they notified the tenants, they shut down the electrical system for X number of hours and they made the necessary repairs. They did not use aluminum wiring as a replacement; they used copper wiring which should have been used in the first place, obviously. They have taken a far more responsible approach to the problem than Ontario Hydro has, and Ontario Hydro is probably the source of the problem, as opposed to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I know that the ministry has responsibility over it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I missed some of that.

Mr. Warner: In my opinion, the problem rests more with Ontario Hydro than it does with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. That ministry has the responsibility, but Ontario Hydro are the ones who have been fighting it. They are the ones with the lawyers and they are the ones who are able to exert pressure. I think they are the source of the problem, quite frankly. That is my view on it.

I want to ask something else. I am very puzzled about why there hasn’t been a change in the pricing policy of the LCBO. If I understand the system properly, every time there is an increase by some source outside the direct control of the liquor board, that results in a magnified increase to the prices on the shelf to the consumer.

For example, in the latest federal budget the federal government increased the excise tax. I think the ratio is roughly that if they increase it by 11 cents then that will translate to about 25 cents on the shelf.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It depends on the product. There is a variety of markup.

Mr. Warner: Yes, there are a variety of things and there is a very useful description here: “The current pricing policy of the liquor control board is to adjust retail prices on an ongoing basis to reflect cost changes as they occur. This action becomes necessary as a direct result of the decline in the value of our Canadian dollar; the increased charges for ocean freight, bunker surcharges have increased twice this year as a result of the increased oil prices; and the ever-increasing worldwide demand for wines. Accordingly, the laid-down costs of each shipment are reviewed and adjusted four weeks after the product has been shipped to stores to avoid increasing prices on existing stock.”

So that the product price is the supplier quotation, the conversion to Canadian dollars, the ocean freight insurance, the federal and excise duty, the federal sales tax --

Hon. Mr. Drea: You are only talking about wines. You didn’t make that clear. If you want to make that clear, it’s fine. It depends upon the product.

Mr. Warner: Okay. Perhaps I have a misunderstanding about the differentiation between that and the spirits, but if I understand the system properly you take all those costs, add them up and then put the markup on top, which means that if any one of those components is increased there will automatically be a greater increase in the total price because the percentage applies to the whole thing.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Or decrease.

Mr. Warner: Or decrease, but from the federal budget we are talking about an increase that the consumers are going to see.

It seems to me that policy is wrong. Why should an increase in the federal tax translate into a greater increase on the shelf?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I don’t want to preclude the member from speaking but what he is talking about is not within the scope of my ministry. It is the responsibility of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). I am just an agent.

Mr. Warner: Okay. There has been some confusion over who sets pricing policy.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In this House, back in March or April, there was a very definitive statement made by both myself and the Treasurer that markups are the sole prerogative of the Treasurer.

The responsibility of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, through me, is that the markup is properly calculated. All we do is the arithmetic. The markup is the sole prerogative of the Treasurer of Ontario.

Mr. Warner: All right. Then that suggests I have to direct my concerns to the Treasurer at the appropriate time, and I will do that. I am wondering if the minister has ever made a representation to the Treasurer on behalf of the consumer. I assume he takes on the responsibility of trying to protect consumers. I am wondering if he has ever made a presentation to the Treasurer, suggesting the present policy is not a good one and should be changed. My concern is that the consumers in this province are not being adequately protected over the cost of beer and wine and spirits.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Does the member want lower liquor prices?

Mr. Warner: I didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What did he say then? I have just told him it is not my responsibility.

Mr. Warner: I do not like to see an automatic, magnified increase in the price of those products.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s the Treasurer’s responsibility.

Mr. Warner: The federal government decides to add a few cents to the excise tax. Fine. That ends up being translated into a very large increase to the consumer. The members of the House understand this; we are torn between the moneys raised by the sale of alcoholic beverages in the province, which is a substantial amount of money, and the serious problems of alcohol abuse. I don’t believe for one moment that the answers to alcohol abuse are found automatically by raising prices to some astronomical level. I just don’t believe that solves the problem. The argument I would use against that is to reflect back on the experience of prohibition.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member is right. Nobody is arguing that now.

Mr. Warner: Good, okay.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am glad to see an intelligent member of the House.

Mr. Warner: Thanks very much. It may be the only compliment I get this session. I am going to reflect in it for a while.

I just wonder if the minister has made a presentation to the Treasurer, suggesting that the pricing policy is not correct; every time there is an automatic increase in the federal tax we shouldn’t suffer a magnified increase. That was my question.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Because of the ramifications internationally, particularly dealing with multi-trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, as it is properly known, I will answer the member privately. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be in a position in my windup to give any type of answer to that at all.

Mr. Warner: Fair enough. The real question needs to be addressed to the Treasurer. I understand that, and I will do that.

Finally, there is a comment I made several years ago; I make it each year and I will continue making it. I am not going to blame the minister individually. I think it is a very conscious policy decision of the government.

The ministry is one that is called, very deliberately, consumer relations. It is not consumer protection. I don’t think anyone in the province should be deluded into thinking we have a ministry of consumer protection -- we don’t -- and the most dramatic evidence of that is the whole question of food prices.

Time and time again, the question of the necessity of having a commission, board or agency which would review the price increases to determine whether they were justified, has been raised in this House. If increases are not justified, the government should have the power to roll back those unjustified increases. Obviously, if they are justified, the increases should go ahead. The government has resisted that every step of the way and, I assume, will continue to resist it.

One of the basic reasons for that is the flaw in the government’s approach. What we have is a ministry of consumer relations, where it is nice to sit down and talk to people about things. We do not have a ministry of consumer protection, where the government would bring in legislation on behalf of consumers to protect consumers as they stand vulnerable to a lot of companies which tend to increase prices whenever they feel like it.

We went through some debate over metric conversion -- there is a great opportunity for companies to take advantage of the public when they convert from the imperial system to the metric system. Of course, a smaller amount of product can be put into a container, the same price can be charged and the public may not be the wiser. The company, of course, makes a huge windfall profit.

Examples of that have been brought into this House. We’ve asked for legislation for protection. We’re not likely to get it because again it’s consumer relations. The minister will talk to the companies and to the consumers but won’t do anything; that’s unfortunate.

It’s unfortunate, because I believe we have a minister who is capable of action and of doing a lot of excellent work on behalf of the people of this province. He demonstrated his good abilities in his previous portfolio. He was certainly aware of the good comments that came from various members of the House about how he carried out his responsibilities in that portfolio.

He’s in a portfolio now where the government policy hamstrings whatever abilities and skills he has, because of this government’s determined policy not to protect the consumers of Ontario but simply to sit down and talk to these companies and corporations which make their livelihood ripping off the public in the province. That’s very sad. Mr. Speaker, a change in direction is needed, and the sooner the better.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment I would like to address to the minister, and I assume the responsibility of the policy of operation of the Brewers’ Retail stores in Ontario falls under his jurisdiction.

In my particular area, more so during the summer months, the local stores stock glasses and various items that relate to the drinking of beer or to the hospitality industry. It seems to me that we have small retail outlets -- some smaller and some larger -- that sell this type of merchandise. It is my feeling that it is unfair competition for the brewers’ outlets to branch out into other types of retail selling.

The grocery or convenience stores in my area and throughout the province aren’t permitted to sell beer. It seems to me that the prime responsibility of the Brewers’ Retail stores is the sale of beer and ale. I’m wondering if the minister is aware of this and if he could have some consultation with the operators of the Brewers’ Warehousing Company Limited and review this policy.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I feel it’s unfair competition, particularly in the tourist areas and in smaller communities, where the individual stores rely on the buying public to support their sometimes marginal operations.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, my involvement in the concurrences is really a request to the minister to see what he can do in regard to what we in the Niagara Peninsula see as a very serious threat to the very worthwhile involvement of the ministry in the Fort Erie racetrack.

I don’t want this to fall on deaf ears, because it’s very important to the people in the peninsula, and our little friend from Scarborough-Ellesmere has had his turn. He usually takes more than the allotted time.

I’m not being in any way critical of the minister’s involvement in racing at Fort Erie, but rather I’m making a request to him to help the people in Fort Erie, in the peninsula to see what can be done about the retention of racing in Fort Erie. It’s coming closer and closer to the time when this critical decision is going to be made.

[12:00]

If I might, I would make a few comments on a situation that seems extraordinarily unfair. In Ontario, we have in the Wintario lottery some futuristic-looking machinery to draw up some coloured balls and a few people involved in that gambling affair. On the other hand, we have quite an involvement in Fort Erie in terms of track, real estate, farmers producing feed, racing horses throughout the province -- we can take that to great lengths if we want to pursue it. But it seems rather strange that in this gambling involvement, it seems to be going quite successfully on one hand with a very minimal investment, and on the other we can’t do something with a tremendous investment that means a great deal to people even beyond the bounds of Fort Erie.

Maybe through this ministry, through the Ministry of Industry and Tourism or maybe even with the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz), perhaps tying in something with what he does there, the Legislature can do whatever it can to help protect what appears to be a very worthwhile involvement there. I am asking for that kind of help.

The mayor of Fort Erie was here within the last couple of days speaking with some of the ministers to see what could be done. It is one of those things where there is a concurrence among everyone in the area that it is a good thing for the area. I don’t think there are any objectors.

I won’t get into too many details of what might be done to help the situation, but maybe one point is worth making. Offtrack betting has been legitimized in New York State. It doesn’t appear to be functioning all that well there.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh yes, it is.

Mr. Kerrio: I am happy in one way to hear that, but my concern is that it had a tremendous impact on Fort Erie and people in that immediate area; New York has taken from the people of Fort Erie. It is one of the big things that has happened. I am not sure that legislating offtrack betting is the answer. I really don’t have that much feel for it. All I know is I have been there during the last two or three summers to see the operation, I am impressed with the facility and I hope the minister will do anything he can to keep it functioning.

I have a couple of other matters I would like to talk about in passing. I have a gentleman who has had so many frustrating experiences with the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada that I don’t know what to say to help him in his dilemma. Over the past three or four years, he has been very unhappy about a new home he had built by one of the people covered by HUDAC.

He took me to the home, finally. We have exchanged correspondence on it, too. I know the minister has done all within his power. I am suggesting there is a fine line here and, coming from the business world and understanding a little bit about guarantees and warranties, I hope HUDAC isn’t going to pursue a warranty where it simply patches things until the time expires. It appears that is what has happened to this gentleman, Mr. Cox from Niagara Falls. They have fixed the pargeting so many times on his brand-new home, they just go through the motions. When steel forms are used on a concrete basement, the finish is so smooth it’s nearly impossible to get anything to stick to the surface. That has been known to the industry for years and it doesn’t take much explaining for everyone to understand that kind of problem is not taken care of by going back with a trowel and a bit of mortar and putting it back on until the time expires.

The workmanship on the home in other instances I don’t think was up to par, and this gentleman simply has not had the kind of satisfaction a good small company would give without having a warranty. Tradespeople in the past, who had some kind of feeling about their reputation, would go back and do something about it. It seems, when you force people, they are going to do the very minimum, and I wonder if that is good enough.

On that topic, another area that bears looking into is the tremendous amount of import gadgetry that never sees any kind of test. You see them in all the small corner stores, you see them everywhere: all the little tools to use in the home -- the can openers, the bottle openers, the corkscrews -- and much of it is junk. I shouldn’t mention the names of places it comes from, I suppose, since that is not acceptable any more, but it comes in in great volumes.

I have raised the question before. In fact, I went on a little trip up north, and I asked my wife to pick up a can opener. I was going to say a corkscrew, but we know you shouldn’t go up north just to drink. In any event, not knowing she had got one, by coincidence, I picked one up at the grocery store on the way to Temagami. On my very first attempt to open a can with the can opener she bought, the thing fell apart in my hand. It was made in Taiwan.

As luck would have it, I had one of the same make, coincidentally, and the same thing happened at the first use.

In talking to many of my neighbours and friends, I have found that is the usual case rather than the exception. There is a tremendous amount of this kind of material and equipment on the market. I am not suggesting any answers. I am just suggesting that is a problem, and I don’t know what the answer might be.

On those three matters -- my concern regarding the operation at Fort Erie, with many jobs and involvement at stake, and the other matters as they relate to my concerns on the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada and much of this other material coming into the country at a time when we might very well be advised to try to get small manufacturers to make those things right here in this country -- I would like to hear from the minister what he thinks might be the answers to some of these problems.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to this concurrence motion?

Mr. Gaunt: I think my colleague from Ottawa East intended to make some remarks before the minister responded.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just outside here, waiting to get on, and I would like to thank my colleague for keeping this debate going. I will not keep it going for any length of time, but I do want to make certain comments to the minister pertaining to the concurrence of supply for his ministry.

First of all, I want to convey to the minister -- I don’t think I have done it before, and I have no qualms about saying it -- that I think his ministry, through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, is ripping off the public of the province as far as the liquor prices are concerned and certainly as far as imported wine prices are concerned. I have no qualms at all about saying that. Anyone who wants evidence of this only has to look at the Globe and Mail of this morning to see the markup, over and above which this government puts on a provincial sales tax.

In the process of obtaining funds in an area which is quite legitimate -- I don’t have any brief for the liquor or tobacco industries, and I think the minister knows that -- it reaches a point where, because of the amount of money that is taken by the province, it reminds me a bit of the shark type of attitude or ripoff that the oil companies are sometimes involved in when they take advantage of increases, shortages and that sort of thing.

I want to place that squarely on the record. There are times when it is a clear ripoff. It is so fraught with contradictions. That is what bothers me: Here he is, dragging in all this money on the one hand, while on the other hand the minister is saying, “Be your own liquor control board.” We have these ads saying, “Be your own liquor control board.” He allows the advertising which my friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) talked about this morning. When I look at all these millions of dollars he is taking from liquor, and I see the percentages being spent for rehabilitation of people who have problems and that sort of thing, I feel all of this is disproportionate.

The overall policy is contradictory and full of what I consider to be illogical approaches going in one direction and then in another direction. It is what I consider to be an abuse, a ripoff on the part of the government, and I have no qualms at all about putting that on the record.

The other thing I want to say is that on behalf of some of my constituents I am somewhat disappointed by the approach taken by the minister, I have to get hack to the minister, because he is like Harry Truman: the buck stops with him. He is the only person I can get to across the aisle. If I had some of those liquor inspectors around who come down to Ottawa, and if I had some of the intermediate people they deal with on a day-to-day basis in front of me, I would love to tell them that. I quite understand that the minister doesn’t know everything that is going on.

I have raised this with the minister in question period and I have raised it with him personally. I have raised it in correspondence with the minister. Again, the problem is that a number of liquor inspectors in the Ottawa area were charged, under the Criminal Code, with accepting benefits or whatever. The minister appoints four liquor inspectors in the Ottawa area.

Subsequent to the charging of these people, new people came down to enforce the laws in the Ottawa area. The difficulty caused by that was that what had been acceptable yesterday in terms of standards for service clubs, clubs involved in sports and others, was no longer acceptable as far as enforcement was concerned.

I will give one example, the Rideau Lawn and Tennis Club, which is probably the oldest tennis club in Ottawa and which has always fostered junior tennis; in fact, some of the top players from Canada have consistently come out of that club because they had a tremendous junior program. It is a nonprofit club. Frankly, it is the only club in Ottawa the general public can afford. It has the cheapest rate and is open to everybody. An inspector walked in and said, “If you are going to start serving liquor around here, you have to consider the juniors.” Well, of course, there are juniors around tennis clubs. The first thing you know, there is an aura painted around the club. They start putting up barricades around the bar, and start putting up walls over here and saying they had better not open any longer on Sundays. The club people start saying, “What the heck is going on?” Obviously, around a club that has been in existence for the better part of the century, you are going to have juniors.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Wasn’t that fixed up a year ago?

Mr. Roy: No, it is still not fixed up. The result is that, first of all, they have to shut down the bar for a while until something happens. I don’t know what it is. I try to follow those liquor laws and find some logic in them, and I have great difficulty. They shut down the bar for a while. Finally the bar reopens. But, although they have been open on Sundays for a number of years, now they can’t open on Sundays any more because, apparently, of juniors around there. They also have to build a wall some place else.

[12:15]

I just give that as one example. That’s the Rideau Lawn and Tennis Club.

The Royal Canadian Legion, the Knights of Columbus and other people for years have had a number of activities including bingos, bean suppers and things of this nature. Inspectors walk in and say, “You can’t open your bingo to the public; it’s got to be for members.” They say: “We’ve been doing this and it has been acceptable for all these years. The bingos are used to raise money to support minor league hockey and to support the boys’ and girls’ clubs in Ottawa.” They have a variety of things going on.

The inspectors then say, “No. Sorry, the liquor laws of Ontario do not permit you people to operate your bingos in that fashion.” Then the inspectors go down to see the Knights of Columbus. They held bean suppers which were a tremendous success; thousands used to attend these things. They raised a lot of revenue for a variety of community activities. Again the inspectors say: “No. It is limited now. If you want to sell tickets, they have to be sold only to members or something.”

A new standard has been imposed. Overnight, what was acceptable yesterday is no longer acceptable today.

I was told as recently as a couple of weeks ago -- I brought this to the minister’s attention -- that the Eastview Legion in my riding has had to discontinue its bingo. They don’t have their bingo any longer. What does that mean? It means thousands of dollars that they no longer have to assist community activities. They are no longer involved in a whole variety of activities that they were supporting: minor league hockey, transportation of people who are disabled and so on. It is the same for the Knights of Columbus, because of the new attitude of liquor inspectors, apparently, towards their bean suppers. So they no longer have funding for a whole host of what I consider to be very worthwhile community activities.

We traditionally talk in this province about getting people involved in the community, and say we shouldn’t always rely on government. I see these boys in Ottawa in their latest budget saying, “Don’t rely on government; let people do things.”

These service clubs were doing things. They were not relying on government; they were not always relying on Wintario. There was a lot of initiative involved in these various communities, and the whole community benefited; now they no longer have it. Why? Because liquor inspectors are coming down riding shotgun, shooting from the hip and saying, “The law is the law and that’s it, boys; we’re sorry for the consequences.”

That’s what bothers me about the liquor laws in this province. They allow people to use that sort of discretion, which I consider to be not in the best interests of the community at large. I appreciate that the minister came down hard, a tough guy, as I recall the first day he was sworn in in this ministry, about the topless waitresses and that sort of thing. I remember that. The reputation was established: “The buck stops here, and a new attitude is going to prevail.”

I have to tell the minister that he has failed. There is evidence that he is not working out that well, because his boys along the way, up the chain of command, are still acting the same way. I don’t know if he is sending orders down, but the messages are not working out. Somewhere along the way the communication is not being made. Maybe the minister should strap on the guns and start working his way down the line and see what the hell is happening along the chain of command.

I am telling the minister, if I suspected there were illegal activities going on, that these service clubs somehow were flagrantly breaching the law in the process of raising money or something along that line, I could understand it. But that overnight, just because some liquor inspectors had been charged, which is no fault of the service clubs -- in fact, none of the service clubs apparently were ever involved with these inspectors; private operators were apparently the ones giving out the goodies --

Hon. Mr, Drea: The trial is today, I believe.

Mr. Roy: The trial is today? Okay, it is not before a jury anyway. We will stay away from that aspect. But the service clubs certainly are not involved.

I am saying to the minister he had better start looking down and say, “What is happening here?” because I don’t think that --

Mr. Speaker: The member is becoming repetitive.

Mr. Roy: Is he?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Roy: I am trying to emphasize the point, because the first couple of times I don’t seem to have got it across to the minister.

I do not want to become repetitive. I accept the admonition of the Speaker. But I hope that the minister’s performance is not only form but there is going to be some substance to it. I am having to ask myself a few questions now, and I hope that will not continue; I am interested in what the minister does, and I am interested in whether his career is a success. Yes, I am. But it is going to be a success if there are some meaningful changes not only in form, but also in substance.

Let the minister keep that in mind and maybe get his boys to check to see what is happening out there, and let’s get these service clubs involved in community organizations again.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Rather than going through the comments member by member, perhaps where there was a duplication by members of particular subjects I might address the subjects for the sake of continuity.

First of all, there were a number of concerns on various aspects of the liquor responsibility. I want to be brief and blunt and candid with the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). I was unhappy a year ago. Perhaps it was in June; in any event, it seems I remember it was just before the closing of one of the sessions, when the question of the Rideau tennis club’s difficulties were brought to me. It was my understanding that those difficulties had been straightened out.

I recall saying to the member at that time I was unhappy about the indigenous realities of eastern Ontario, which I thought covered the subject. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of what the honourable member has brought forward today I am damned mad.

I also must advise the member that I am in receipt of some concerns by Detective Lamoureaux of the Vanier force.

Mr. Roy: Yes. He gets excited for nothing.

Hon. Mr. Drea: He is bringing forward pretty basically the proposition that has been brought forward by the member, where he is talking about inconsistent administration of the regulations.

I want to tell the member for Ottawa East, and realizing the lateness of the season, that very early in January I am going to go to Vanier. I want to discuss the matters that are of concern, because they are in this same general area, with the Vanier city police force. I intend to sit down and discuss the matters with the member. I would like to have as many service clubs as possible. We could do it in the evening when they are available. I will bring senior people from the special occasion permit and licensing branches of the board.

I was unhappy some months ago. Now I am just damned mad. It is the only place in the province where there appears to be this inconsistency. What has been brought to my attention is that, in the light of the charges laid, the inspectors who were brought in from other areas to do temporary duty were concerned that unless they took the utmost stringency in reading the act they, too, might be charged. That’s nonsense. I just don’t accept that at all.

The one area where there appears to be problems is with the fair and impartial administration of the Liquor Licence Act as it pertains to service clubs, community organizations and other endeavours, because it appears to be only in the environs of Ottawa. The member is absolutely correct. None of the Criminal Code charges, in the remotest way, involved this type of operation. I will be in touch with the members There’s going to be a crackdown in Vanier. If it is necessary to have firings, there will be firings. Period.

Mr. Roy: Invite me to the meeting. I will talk to them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I expect the member to be there. I’ll set that up. If there needs to be firings or disciplinary hearings because people will not accept instructions, then so be it.

In terms of the prices of alcohol, as I drew to the attention of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), the markup and the pricing are not the responsibility of this ministry. They are the sole prerogative of the Treasurer. Ours is merely an arithmetic role. As I pointed out, I am not in a position to reply to those rates and so forth. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario is merely an agent of the Treasurer. We must accept the instructions in the budget. The LCBO and myself as the minister responsible would be in utter contempt of the legislative process. When the Treasurer lays down the markups, or the tax in the budget, we’re as bound to obey that as a retailer is to collect the appropriate amount of sales tax. We do not set the policy in that regard.

There was some concern expressed about the retail selling of products other than alcohol in Brewers’ Retail establishments. I will take that up with the LCBO and with the Brewers’ Warehousing Company Limited. There are not the restrictions on Brewers’ Warehousing selling other than beer or ale as there is in the Liquor Control Board of Ontario operation, because they are a free-enterprise operation. They are not the government. They are a co-operative owned by the brewers themselves. I will take that up through the LCBO and direct their attention to the concerns about the unfair competition with small business, particularly in the tourist industry.

I want to draw one thing to the attention of this House, because it is always brought forward: “You will do this year $412 million in alcohol profit. Last year you did $360 million or so. There’s alcohol abuse out there. The health programs aren’t being funded,” et cetera.

Let me put on the record that three per cent of provincial revenues come from profits of the LCBO. Twenty-seven per cent of the provincial budget is in the health field. I am not going to suggest that we have the alcohol prevention or alcohol reclamation programs that are beginning to turn the tide in the field. I’m not suggesting that at all.

[12:30]

What I am suggesting is it is a rather false argument to suggest that funds be earmarked specifically out of the LCBO or out of the profits. Indeed, cash is not the prime necessity in some alcoholism treatment programs; it is necessary, but it’s not the prime ingredient. Program development would be far more efficient if it were directed by the health field rather than to the LCBO. Twenty-seven per cent of the provincial budget deals with health problems whereas, as I say, only three per cent of revenues are from the LCBO.

There have been some concerns about the slowness of and difficulties with the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada. I’m going to say very bluntly to the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), that matter will be settled to my satisfaction in 30 days from today.

I wish someone would convey to the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) that I don’t know terribly much about that particular case, but I say to him that last year a similar type of thing was brought forward by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). I will use my good offices and we will resolve that situation before we have another set of estimates. I don’t know how we will do it or in what manner, but it will be rectified and remedied.

I want to come to a number of concerns, particularly those in the Niagara Peninsula concerning horseracing and the whole area of social gambling. I have said in the Niagara Peninsula that I was not appointed the minister of the ministry responsible for horseracing and parimutuel betting in this province to preside over the closing of any racetracks. It is my considered mandate that I am to preside over the opening of racetracks.

There is no question that certain economic developments have affected the viability of the Fort Erie racetrack, not the least of which is the purse-sharing agreement, where there is building a considerable thrust by horsemen -- that is, the people who own them -- that their interests would be better served by having thoroughbred racing confined to Woodbine and Greenwood. This is the same thrust, albeit by the harness horsemen, that resulted in the closing and mothballing of the Garden City Raceway for harness horses.

I am determined to keep Fort Erie open, but we have to --

Mr. T. P. Reid: How about offtrack betting? That’ll help them all.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I’m coming to that. The member may play a role in it.

We have to look at the realities of the situation. The realities of the situation are that when I want to do anything about the horseracing industry, be it a situation like the plant at Fort Erie which I regard as the most integral part of tourism promotion in that particular area of the peninsula, every time I come to the question about purses, every time I come to concerns about the more than 30,000 to 40,000 people in the industry and their economic viability, I am hamstrung by the inability of whoever operates in Ottawa as the Minister of Agriculture to make a decision about offtrack betting.

If they would come forward and say, “No, there will be no offtrack betting,” then there are remedies that I have to look at. It may not be possible for me to deliver them, but at least I can look at the remedies. If they would say, “Yes, there is going to be offtrack betting,” then the remedy that could be applied if they hadn’t said that would no longer be a remedy. You have to look at things.

A year ago in January I made a speech to the National Association of Racetracks, in which I brought up this very question. There are all kinds of concerns in the racing industry but there is the inability of any provincial racing commission to deal with them, because we don’t know what is around the corner.

The real villain in this piece is the federal Department of Agriculture, which wants to expand its empire. It is totally defiant of the overall government of Canada policy. I am talking about the policy enunciated since May 22, which is that where there is a duplication between federal and provincial services in a province, and the province has the resources to end that duplication, then the federal government disengages.

The federal Department of Agriculture has stonewalled and sandbagged a decision on offtrack betting. This thing about the Minister of Agriculture going to consult with me, that’s nonsense. He’s going to write me a letter. He can phone me any time of the week. We have two throne speeches on the subject, we have a number of other things, but the Department of Agriculture wants to run offtrack betting.

Any extension of the federal Department of Agriculture in the racing industry of this province is intolerable. We want them to disengage. The difficulty is, and I say this to the House, it must be terribly frustrating to the members as legislators when they are looking for a decision, just a decision, yes or no. But I suggest to the members that at least this time the full empirical role of the Department of Agriculture has come out. The Department of Agriculture says, “It does not matter too much about the length of the consultation process because we know what kind of machine should be bought.” Out, out of this province. This Legislature will make up its mind about offtrack betting, who is going to run it and so on, but we have to have a decision.

I say to the members, and particularly those from the peninsula, where there is an economic difficulty, it is extremely difficult to try to have a remedy program when you don’t know what is around the corner. If there is no offtrack betting, there are a number of things that have to be addressed.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I thought we were going to have a decision from the federal minister.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The decision of the federal minister was that, on the advice of the Department of Agriculture, he was going to consult again. I have made myself clear about what I think about the announcements of a week or so ago.

The Attorneys General of this country have gone on record and they have said regarding enabling legislation, “Let the provinces decide if they want it or if they don’t want it,” et cetera. That obviously doesn’t cut weight with the Department of Agriculture. All I say to the Department of Agriculture is, “Don’t play games with me, because any extension of what you are doing is intolerable; so get out.”

I give an example: Last night, according to the rules of the Ontario Racing Commission, there should not have been a triactor in the 10th race at Greenwood, because eight horses couldn’t be in it. That’s a very definite rule by the racing commission. There were only seven horses. The Department of Agriculture said that since some money had been taken into the pool, they couldn’t cancel the triactor. Greenwood Raceway had the prospect last night of either violating the federal code or the provincial code.

That’s what I am talking about in terms of duplication et cetera.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What about the fact that the province takes $15 million out of the thoroughbreds when the horses are only running for $14 million?

Hon. Mr. Drea: In effect, they would not be running for $14 million were it not for the fact that one per cent of the $230 million wagered on thoroughbred racing goes back to a self-help program and three out of every four of those dollars go to the overnight purses.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s right. But the government is making more of a profit from the horses than the horse people.

Hon. Mr. Drea: We are making more of a profit out of harness racing, which is very successful. I do not think the take-out, quite frankly, is the panacea for the industry. What I am saying to the members is that there is no panacea. The difficulty is, until they get off their tails in Ottawa and stop fooling around and stop passing it on, there cannot be an intelligent long-range solution. Everybody in the industry will tell you that. If Ottawa will make a decision today, I will make it this afternoon. Then it is up to this Legislature either to agree or to disagree, but not to hang around and do this in perpetuity because somebody in the Department of Agriculture feels they will lose their control over racing. They should not have any control any way. They can have a co-ordinating role, and obviously that is necessary, but that is all. Out! We will pay them a licence fee, but out.

Mr. Roy: The minister should not have any problems doing that. Joe Clark does it all the time.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am not winning very much but I hope, when the racing writers discover my comments today, that I may win a little. In any event, the member did ask me for a commitment regarding Fort Erie. Yes, I give it to him. I give it to the member, I give it to the community and I give it to the track. I have been very concerned for more than a year about the future operations of Fort Erie. The member is quite correct; it is the handsomest race course in all of North America. There is no question about that at all. Also, as I say, I regard it as one of the keystones in the tourist promotion industry of the Niagara Frontier.

On the question of offtrack betting, the western district of New York State -- which is Buffalo and Niagara Falls -- is considered their weak link. Their gross is $103 million, and they are always betting out of town. So there is a market in that area and, through the things we can do, particularly in the future for Fort Erie.

I want to come to the question of what is being done about lifestyle advertising. I find the remarks about lifestyle advertising of beer by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) to be obsolete. Two or three weeks ago I was at the annual meeting of the successor to Toc Alpha; I think it is Alcohol and Drug Concerns or the successor to the temperance federation. In any event, I spoke at their annual meeting and I told them what we were doing about lifestyle advertising. They were quite supportive. They thought we had begun to crack and to turn back in that particular area.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I haven’t noticed it in Norfolk.

Hon. Mr. Drea: This is constantly the thing but, if one keeps watching, one will notice. It is gaining momentum. Bear in mind the most fundamental point. They do not produce a commercial for X tens of thousands of dollars and then throw it away. They had a story board, almost like a comic strip, where they outlined what the commercial was going to be; that received approval. Then they would come back with their commercial, which bore very little resemblance to that, on the grounds that the director, the producer or whoever in California would not go along with the story board -- you know, the old one about artistic freedom et cetera.

I put in a new rule. I said: “It is your final commercial that counts. I won’t mind if your final commercial is thrown out; so it had better adhere to the story board.”

We are seeing less and less of the lifestyle, bearing in mind that some of those tapes are grandfathered. It is a difficult area to proceed in, because of the difficulty with defining lifestyle and all the subtle nuances. We are seeing now more and more commercials involving only bottles or labels. There is no lifestyle in a bottle or a label. In other words, the happy warriors, or what have you, have disappeared.

[12:45]

The whole of the advertising for the first time is being governed by a policy; not by directives or anything like that. With directives and so forth, there’s always the thrust to penetrate them or to say, “Let’s see how far we can go.” There is now a policy, and that policy is the one the cabinet adopted last spring concerning the breweries and minor sports; that is, everything they do must be measured by a spirit of restraint. It’s “Pull back,” not, “Up to the line and let’s see how we can go through.”

I am prepared to say that a year from now that even the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is going to admit that the original thrust of my predecessor, which I inherited and which I support -- and I get truly angry when I’m told that I don’t support it -- is much more apparent. I do support it and I pushed it farther. I’ve had to deal with the practical applications of it, which in some cases have been difficult. I will say a year from now, or perhaps when my estimates are on in the spring, there will be such an apparent rollback in terms of lifestyle advertising that even the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, who is profoundly concerned about this matter, will agree that things are being done in accordance with this matter.

In terms of the remarks that were made about Condominium Ontario, I want to say this: The corporation -- that’s what it is -- has every right in the world to be concerned or to object -- not to the questions, but to the manner in which the questions were addressed by the member for Etobicoke. I do want to emphasize that it is to the member for Etobicoke, because, in fairness to him, he was not the chairman of the committee when he addressed those questions. He very properly was out of the chair.

The one thing I do want to correct is this matter of the list that is being kept secret from the Etobicoke organization. The president of the Etobicoke Condominium Association, when he was a member of the board of directors of Condominium Ontario, said he would resign if that list were ever made public, because it was obtained from condominium corporations on the basis that it would be confidential. This is a very real problem. It is a problem I will be addressing in the very near future, but it is not one of those where some people have used their money to get a list and now won’t put it out.

They went to condominium corporations, which said, “No, we’re not going to give you a list.” They said: “It will be absolutely confidential.” Now, of course, there is the thrust that it not be kept confidential; that it be completely opened up. I want to emphasize that the Etobicoke Condominium Association, which now wants the list opened up, is the one that insisted in the beginning on the confidentiality and the privacy of it. I suggest to the member this is going to be a very difficult one for the minister to referee. He should keep that in mind. When people want something in the fall of the year, they should remember what their position was in the spring of the year.

In regard to the minutes, the reason one of the minutes was not in there was that the committee had not asked for it. They bad not asked for that October one.

Mr. Philip: It was asked for by me in my letter.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I wish the member would pay attention to me. When these estimates were in committee, I offered to get the minutes. That particular minute was not relevant to this. If the member tells me the committee wants that particular minute, I will get it. It has to be remembered that this is a corporation dealing at arm’s length from the government. They have their own board. The minister isn’t there. They have their own minutes. In the future it’s going to be a fully elected board; not just an interim board. We don’t go to the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada home warranty people, who deal at arm’s length from the government, and say their minutes are for the Legislature. The minutes of the new insurance agents’ self-regulatory body were never intended to be filed with the Legislature. I don’t see the basis upon which minutes from a non-shares, nonprofit corporation dealing at arm’s length from the government are automatically put into this Legislature.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister indicated it was the position of the Etobicoke Condominium Association -- if not, he implied it was the position of the Etobicoke Condominium Association, or at least it was the position of Mr. Littlefield -- that the minutes be kept secret or “confidential,” which is the word he used, I’d like to point out to him --

Hon. Mr. Drea: I didn’t say “minutes.” I said “list.”

Mr. Philip: Okay. That the list be kept confidential. I’d like to point out to him the minutes of the board of directors’ meeting held in suite 706, 44 Eglinton Avenue West, on August 7: “It was moved by Terry Littlefield and seconded by Ralph Lewis that he reconsider a motion in the minutes of June 19, 1979, with regard to the confidentiality of the mailing list of Condominium Ontario.”

I’d like to point out that motion, moved by Mr. Littlefield, clearly indicates he was in favour of having public disclosure of the minutes of Condominium Ontario and was not of the position indicated by the minister. He can check his own minutes, which he kindly supplied to me, from Condominium Ontario to verify that fact.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member’s point is on the record.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I understand Mr. Littlefield made the remarks in the presence of members there. If Mr. Littlefield did not make those remarks, then Mr. Littlefield can come and see me and say he did not make those remarks. it is so simple.

Mr. Philip: The minutes show otherwise. Do you not even trust the minutes of Condominium Ontario, not what someone might have said in some barroom or other?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, that remark is unworthy of the member. Those remarks were not made in a barroom. They were made in a boardroom.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I don’t think the House is going to gain much by conducting this controversy further. It’s a matter of record which I assume the minister will follow up in due course.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There are a number of things that were wanted. We will consider the request of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) regarding the Universal Product Code and its general applications.

On the question of the consumer warranty, at the moment we are trying to seek uniformity in legislation across the country. If we cannot do that, we will obviously have to go ahead alone. As to what session it will be in, I don’t know at this time. There is an additional report by the law reform commission which we have just received and which undoubtedly will shed new light and new thought upon the subject.

Regarding the concern about product safety, that is something the federal government is disengaging from the province. They will be able to devote more funds to it, and it is a commitment by the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to do much more in the area of product safety, which will answer many of the concerns of the member.

Although he is absent, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) did ask a couple of questions about aluminum wiring. I can provide a bit of an interim report. Since we opened up the centre, just before the opening of the March session here, there have been approximately 8,600 phone calls; of those, about 5,700 asked for an inspection which, as you know, is provided free. We have done all but 443 of the inspections requested. The problem with the ones remaining is that they have made appointments with us for an inspection and then haven’t been home; so we are giving them until the end of this month. When they make an appointment with us two or three times and still break it, we begin to wonder if they want the inspection done.

The percentage of problems is about 15 per cent; faulty receptacles are the most common. We have uncovered an awful lot of houses that were wired without a permit. I’m not talking about the ability of an electrician or somebody skilled to do their own wiring; they get a permit, so it can be checked. We have found that an appalling number of these houses with problems have been wired in a most peculiar manner. There is very little we can do except to say, “You have to get a permit and somebody in here to start all over again, because, regardless of why you did it, you can’t go on much longer with this type of wiring or you are going to have difficulties.” I throw out that statistic, because it wouldn’t matter what kind of wire you had when that sort of thing is done.

I want to say to the members they must bear in mind that Professor Wilson said aluminum wire is safe. You must go into how it is installed. We are looking at that installation. It doesn’t have much relevance to the situation in the United States, because one of their major problems, the zinc screw, was never allowed here.

I am hopeful of being able to put out a full and final report on the aluminum wiring resource centre some time before the end of January, and I think that report will address itself to the questions asked by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

I want to thank the members of the House and those who were in committee for their constructive suggestions. I go back to last year when, if it wasn’t for the persistence of a member on a long-forgotten and long-neglected case, probably nothing would have been done. There is an obligation on the members here to constantly stimulate the minister and the ministry into reviving lost causes and taking another look. I find that sometimes, when you take that last and final look, you come up with --

Mr. McClellan: No cause is ever lost.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If it is left in oblivion, it is lost. I want to thank the members for their constructive contributions and, as I say, I will take care of certain matters with individual members as rapidly as possible.

There is one last thing, a matter of very urgent importance, particularly to the member for Niagara Falls. There will be no casino gambling at the CNE. We are not bereft of our senses. The policy is, no casino gambling.

What is happening at the CNE has already happened at Western Fairgrounds, the Central Ontario Exhibition at Kitchener, at the Oktoberfest and so forth. What we have done is provided Monte Carlo operations at fall fairs and special ongoing events like Oktoberfest, putting all of the wheels and the tables under one operation. The one stipulation is, it must go to the fall fair. It cannot be run by an operator; it must be run by that fair or, in the case of Oktoberfest, by the Waterloo Lions. It is a control mechanism, and it is a very useful way of diverting money into capital funds. It must be retained by the CNE or other fall fairs, and there is a dollar limit.

So it is not a deviation from provincial policy, which is no casino gambling. This is social gambling. We think it will provide a perhaps not substantial donation to the CNE but enough to carry out a number of building projects both there and at other places that would otherwise have to be borne by the agricultural societies, which means the taxpayers. But there is no inconsistency with that and the policy of no casino gambling.

It is also my very firm understanding from officials in New York that there will be no casino gambling in New York state, including Niagara Falls.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The resolution before the House is for concurrence of supply for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Resolution concurred in.

The House recessed at 1 p.m.