Hansard Transcript 1988-May-25 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

I would like you to recognize, from the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Victoria, Australia, the member for the electoral district of Frankston South, the Honourable George Graeme Weideman. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Weideman.

Also, we are privileged to have a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, the Speaker-designate, Denis Rocan. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Rocan.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Laughren: Ontario’s workers’ compensation system is in a mess; injured workers are unhappy with it. The Workers’ Compensation Board is bureaucratic, it is adversarial in nature and it has a terrible rehabilitation system. Supplements have been reduced for workers who are on permanent pensions.

Not only are workers unhappy; employers are unhappy with their compensation system too as the assessment rates seem to climb for ever. We have a $6-billion unfunded liability of the compensation board as well. MPPs, unions, organizations of injured workers, community legal clinics, case workers and indeed the minister’s own office of the worker adviser are backed up all across Ontario with injured workers’ problems.

As though all this was not bad enough, the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has abandoned injured workers. The Minister of Labour has historically been the safety valve between workers and the rather capricious policies of the Workers’ Compensation Board. Whenever the oppression of injured workers became unbearable, the Minister of Labour has been able to intervene. But this minister has simply not been able to do that; the Workers’ Compensation Board is running the Ministry of Labour. If I could draw a nice analogy, it really is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mrs. Cunningham: Lack of capital funding for school boards is a crisis. The concerns of parents and trustees are getting louder. The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) advised his board this past week to consider debentures in construction of core schools -- short-term solutions, no long-term planning and a change of tune, I might add, for the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, certainly not the advice he gave his board when he was employed by it. Ontario boards have been debenturing, constructing core schools and adding portables at a phenomenal rate since this government took office.

Toeing the Liberal Party line is not good enough in Muskoka, nor is it good enough in London. The separate school board in London has been given no options for its immediate crisis accommodation needs. It has been forced to build a village of portables to the tune of $440,000. Obviously, accommodation for students in public and separate school systems across this province is not important to this government.

The separate school board in London is not receiving full financing. The promise of full financing to separate schools is just another broken promise. Public school boards across Ontario are receiving even less. We would urge the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to reassess the priorities within his ministry immediately.

DUCKS UNLIMITED CANADA

Mr. McGuigan: I am sure the House will join me today in congratulating a remarkable organization on achieving a milestone in its dedication to conservation. Indeed, all Ontarians are indebted to Ducks Unlimited Canada, which marks its 50th anniversary this year.

It is worth recalling that in 1938, when Ducks Unlimited was established, the duck population was declining at an alarming rate on this continent. It was the drought years, and all across the Prairies ponds and waterholes were disappearing, leaving duck populations with no place to go. Funded by its members and by public contributions, Ducks Unlimited took major initiatives in wetland regeneration and other projects to improve the habitat for waterfowl.

This anniversary year, Ducks Unlimited has budgeted almost $44 million for wetland habitat projects across Canada. The Ministry of Natural Resources should be extremely proud of its rewarding association and partnership with Ducks Unlimited. Since 1975, the organization has invested some $18 million on projects to regenerate provincial habitat. These include improvements to more than 270 wetlands, totalling 33,000 acres.

In all, people have contributed almost $30 million to further Ducks Unlimited’s activities, and the list of donors is nearing 100,000. I take pride in being a member of the organization. As Ducks Unlimited marks its golden anniversary, it is most appropriate that this year the Ministry of Natural Resources is planning to provide more protection for wetlands in the provincial law.

OFFICE OF THE WORKER ADVISER

Mr. Farnan: I rise to draw attention to the staffing situation at the office of the worker adviser in Kitchener. I have a couple of pieces of correspondence, the first from Sandy Provost of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America Local 1090, who writes:

“I feel we need at least two more workers as it takes from six months to a year to get an appointment to see a counsellor. Although the present staff are good and conscientious workers they are overworked and can’t spend the time needed to give service to all who need help due to the complicated procedures and language of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The prolonged waiting period also causes worry and stress to injured workers who must wait for help with their claims.”

The other piece of correspondence comes from Terry Rogers. He says he is “writing to complain about the small number of staff in the office of the worker adviser” on King Street in Kitchener. “The advisers who are employed there are helpful and hard-working but cannot possibly handle the workload effectively.”

Both of these individuals request that the government address this situation and give much-needed relief to the workers’ compensation staff by employing additional staff to help with the overload.

1340

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Harris: The Liberals have banned trapping in our parks. I want to educate those who do not understand the anticonservation and antiwildlife consequences.

Trapping is key to professional wildlife management. Ontario’s fur-bearer management program is the best in the world. There are more fur-bearers in Ontario today than when settlers first arrived but, because of man, species such as beaver would be endangered today if not for the conservation work of trappers. Control of rabies and flooding are recognized rural and urban benefits.

With 15 million acres in Ontario now devoid of wildlife management, the Peterson Liberals have dealt all wildlife a cruel blow, opening the door to overpopulation, which leads to disease, starvation, stress, predation and population collapse. Wildlife knows no park boundaries.

This decision may violate a legal agreement with the 16,000-member Ontario Trappers Association. It bans a resource activity in our summer parks that does not even begin until November. Yet the minister did not even have the courtesy to consult the Ontario Trappers Association or the public.

I am also told the minister’s own wildlife experts were shocked by his announcement, made for political reasons with no understanding of the wildlife damage.

The politics are clear. So are the consequences. What is not clear is how we explain what happened on the day our children say: “We learned about wildlife in school today. What did it look like and why did you let them die?”

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Morin: I am sure that all members who have known the haunting stillness of a northern lake or heard the piercing cry of a solitary loon share my interest in protecting our wilderness.

Having lived in the north and having loved its natural beauty all my life, I am saddened by the damage that we, in our ignorance, have caused. We are paying dearly for our mistaken sense of endless space and infinite resources. We have destroyed lakes and species and devastated forests. We are finally learning from our errors. We are halting the destruction and repairing the damage.

The new provincial parks and new protection policy introduced by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) are a step in the right direction. I particularly commend the honourable minister on his decision regarding land use in the Temagami area.

The policy speaks clearly for the protection of the environment by forbidding such things as mining, trapping and hydroelectric development in wilderness areas. At the same time, it recognizes that people also have a place in the natural world. The local economy in Temagami is dependent on lumbering, and people are entitled to make a living. It is possible to protect the environment and at the same time to allow a limited amount of strictly regulated logging. The key is to learn to return what we are given, to find, once again, a balance with the natural world.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Next week focuses on the problems of the disabled. I wonder where the government’s commitment to employment equity has gone.

On Friday, the case of Steve Woodbridge, somebody who has been good enough to work in the government’s ministries for two years on a temporary contract, who placed third in two interviews and yet was not hired, was brought to light.

It is time now for this government not just to redress the problems of Steve Woodbridge but to bring in mandatory affirmative action programs and at least finally to implement the planning-for-diversity proposals that were initiated and brought forward last July.

STATEMENT BY THE MIMSTRY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Hon. Mr. Scott: Later today I will be tabling my ministry’s analysis of the impact of the proposed Canada-United States trade agreement.

The key finding is that the agreement will reduce dramatically and systematically the ability of all provincial governments to shape and implement social and economic policy. Of course, the impact on federal powers, which others will study, is equally dramatic.

In addition, the trade agreement makes room for a third party at the federal-provincial bargaining table. That third party is the government of the United States of America, which will have the right to insist that our national government intervene in a whole range of matters which fall under provincial jurisdiction.

This will mean that provincial attempts to respond to the social and economic needs of our citizens will be severely constrained in the future. New provincial programs in a wide variety of areas will be monitored by politicians and interest groups in the United States. If they object, they will have the legal right to call upon our federal government to intervene and attempt to override provincial programs.

Some members will know that US implementing legislation will apparently require the US government to monitor Canadian subsidies programs, submitting annual reports to Congress and reserving the right to bring trade complaints against Canadian subsidized industries.

This new legal relationship with the United States will fundamentally alter the established dynamic and workings of Canadian federalism.

In the past, Canadian federalism has been sustained on a spirit of compromise, civility and mutual respect. Both federal and provincial governments in this country have refrained from aggressive intrusions into the jurisdiction of other governments and avoided needless constitutional confrontation.

This Canadian political tradition is threatened by the proposed trade agreement. Under the agreement, the United States will be able to insist that the government of Canada attempt to control provincial programs and policies in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This follows from the undertaking of the federal government in article 103 to “ensure that all necessary measures are taken” to ensure the observance of the agreement by the provinces.

The legal analysis details the range of impacts on provincial programs and policies. Some of the most severe effects on provincial programs include the following:

The energy provisions will restrict the scope of two-price energy policy as a provincial tool for economic development.

Natural resources are subject to compulsory sharing with the United States in times of shortage, and licensing for commercial use of resources must be accorded equally to Americans and Canadians.

US management service providers in fields such as public and psychiatric hospitals, ambulance services, health clinics, professional medical offices and blood banks have been given the right to establish business in Canada and to acquire Canadian service businesses, while the provincial power to differentiate between Canadian and American service providers has been limited.

Buy-Canadian investment rules have been prohibited, and subsidies and taxes may not in general in the future deny equal treatment to US businesses.

Wine listing and pricing policies will have to provide equal treatment to United States wines without the favourable treatment given to nonconforming practices now existing in Quebec and British Columbia.

For Ontario, this agreement is not just about the specific matter of implementing a new regulatory regime for wine and spirits. Rather, the agreement will mean a broad impairment of many Ontario policy responsibilities. The range and extent of the impact on provinces and on the dynamics of Canadian federalism is so significant as to amount to a unilateral constitutional change.

It is evident that there are very serious questions of constitutional competence raised by this agreement. My ministry will be examining the federal implementing legislation in the days and weeks ahead on a sector-by-sector basis in the context of the constitutional concerns that are set out in the study. Our analysis will consider a range of options in response to the very serious implications for Ontario identified by the study.

I should emphasize that the constitutional concerns which we have identified do not relate simply to the implementing legislation currently before the House of Commons. One of the key findings of the legal impact study is that the trade agreement amounts to a substantial impairment of our ability to govern. This impairment will become more clearly apparent over the medium-to-long term, as the province is prevented from exercising political choices and options which might otherwise have been available. The range of options open to Ontario as well as to the other provinces must be understood and assessed in this broader context.

Constitutional change in this country should not be achieved as an afterthought. It is important for all Canadians to understand and openly debate changes in the way we are governed.

One of the key effects of the free trade agreement is to alter constitutional relationships in this country. I hope that the publication of this report will help stimulate a much-needed debate both among members of this House and among all Canadians. I also expect that the issue of just who does what in the economy should be an early candidate for serious constitutional review. This review should examine the roles and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments over the economy and consider whether we need a constitutional guarantee of our economic union.

1350

RESPONSES

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: It is truly a remarkable day when, after the federal government has released its legislation setting out precisely what it is going to be doing, the very best the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) can do is basically to reproduce the speech he gave on December 15, 1987. I think it is fair to say the Attorney General has been sitting on this analysis for several months. There is no excuse for the delay. What it has told us is precisely nothing.

I would like to quote, if I may, from page 98 of this devastating analysis, in which the province tells us precisely where it stands. This is the day after the legislation has been brought out by Mr. Crosbie. The gauntlet has been thrown down. Sections of the act state quite specifically that the federal government will intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction whether the provinces like it or not. What is the response to this systematic attack on the ability of this province and other provinces to manage their affairs?

Listen to the attack that is being led by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Attorney General, with their 94 Horsemen of the Apocalypse behind them: “Challenges to any aspect of the agreement need not come from a provincial government but may evolve out of private disputes.” Those are fighting words indeed. John Crosbie is quaking in his mukluks when he hears this kind of approach from the Attorney General.

“Both private parties and provincial governments will be closely analysing the means chosen by the federal government” -- there is nothing a federal government fears more than an analysis from the Attorney General of this province -- “not just in the first instance but over the course of the next years, to ensure that the agreement is brought into force in Canada. Some of the reasons for careful scrutiny” -- oh boy, scrutiny -- “of these means have been set out in this discussion.” Scrutiny and analysis. That is the way to defeat the feds when it comes to free trade. That is really going to do the trick.

This government has had an opportunity. First, the Premier said, “Give me a mandate so I can fight the feds on free trade,” and Lord only knows he got his mandate. Then we asked him questions about what he was going to do, and he said: “I can’t tell you what I’m going to do. I have to wait for the agreement.” Then the agreement came out.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I remember that.

Mr. B. Rae: You remember that.

Then he said: “Don’t push me on the agreement. I have to wait for the legislation.” Then the legislation came out, and we waited today for the Attorney General and he did not even pull a rabbit out of his head. He did not even pull a hamster out of his hat. He did not pull a rabbit out of his hat. He pulled “careful scrutiny.” He pulled “closely analysing.” He pulled the possibility that this may go to court. “It might, but it won’t necessarily come from us. It might just come from a private dispute.”

If the Attorney General and the Premier were really concerned about free trade, if they were really concerned about the fact that this represents a constitutional attack on the powers of the provincial government, do members not think the Attorney General would have been in his place today and said, “We’re going to take the feds to court because we don’t think the feds have the right to do this”?

If they were to believe the Premier, that he was truly opposed to this agreement because it affected the rights of all provincial governments, do members not think he would be in his place today making the announcement himself that he would be speaking up on behalf of the provinces? Do members not think that is what he would do? Of course it is. This is a joke.

The Attorney General has turned what should be a moment of history in this province, in terms of our rights and our authority to speak up for areas of our jurisdiction, into a time of provincial retreat, into a time of provincial “close scrutiny,” into a time of provincial “careful analysis,” but not into a time of provincial action.

Yesterday we saw that we have people who are going to be waiting five years for a bus and five years for a subway. Now we are going to be waiting five, 10 or 15 years for our rendezvous with destiny, because what the Premier has said and what the Attorney General has said is that they are not prepared to act. They are not prepared to do. They are simply prepared to talk, to discuss, to scrutinize and to analyse.

We do not need a government to do that. If the Attorney General wants to do that, he should go back to private practice and do it. If he wants to act and the Premier wants to act, let them act now on behalf of Ontario and indeed on behalf of Canada.

Mr. Sterling: While I do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition on every matter on which he spoke, I do agree that this statement and legal opinion are a joke.

I said to the Attorney General some time ago that he would not confront the federal government with regard to a constitutional battle, because he knows he has already lost the fight before he goes to court. Therefore, what he has done, and what his Premier has done during the last election, is to pretend in front of the people of Ontario that he had a right, he had a constitutional challenge and there was a way to stop the free trade agreement if he wanted to do that.

Now we find out that the Attorney General is in full flight of retreat, along with his Premier, as he has evidenced in this document and his statement today.

He says, and I find this as much of a joke, “Canadian federalism has been sustained on a spirit of compromise, civility and mutual respect,” and governments should avoid “needless constitutional confrontation.”

Now we know what the Attorney General is doing. He knows he cannot win on this matter. He knows if he goes into court, he has much more to lose than to gain, because if he loses there will not be any further negotiations when trade matters are talked about in the future.

If one looks at this statement and this opinion in the context of our General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations, the very same arguments could be made with regard to those negotiations. Under the GATT rules, the same kind of a tax, the same kind of monitoring and every other matter that is contained in this document, which is trying to maintain the harum-scarum attitude of the Liberal government during the last election, is carried on.

But the same thing is true of the GATT as is true of this bilateral agreement, save and except that under this bilateral agreement we do have access to a dispute resolution mechanism where we can bring to the table our concerns, as well as they can bring forward their concerns. I see that as an advantage. I do not see that as a disadvantage.

I guess this is maybe the next-to-the-last step of retreat. I expect the Premier in the very near future, perhaps in the next week or the next two weeks or maybe in the next two months, will be saying finally that there will not be a confrontation because of some matter in terms of his wanting to have national unity across our country.

The fact of the matter is that this government has been bluffing. They bluffed in the election, they bluffed in the past six months and now they are caught out.

Mr. Pope: I would like to add my own comments. We have seen not only a retreat by the Premier of this province and the Attorney General in every sense of the word on this issue, but we have also seen the Premier come full circle.

Just about a year ago, the Premier said he wanted to assess the mood of the people of Ontario on this issue, he wanted to get their opinions. He had a cabinet committee reviewing the impact of proposed trade legislation or a free trade agreement with the United States. He then called an election to seek a mandate from the people. He said the people could speak on this issue, his main issue during the provincial election in the fall of 1987.

During the course of that campaign and the months that followed, he said and he boasted that Ontario had a veto, that Ontario could stop the free trade agreement. He then said Ontario could frustrate its implementation. He then said he would mount a constitutional challenge to the agreement itself. He then evolved that position into saying he would mount a constitutional challenge to the agreement itself. He then evolved that position into saying he would mount a constitutional challenge to the legislation when it was introduced. He then said he would challenge any regulations that were introduced to implement the trade agreement.

1400

Now what do we have here virtually stated by the Attorney General speaking on behalf of the Premier? We have words like these: “It is important for all Canadians to understand and openly debate changes in the way we are governed,” and “Publication of this report will stimulate a much-needed debate.”

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

Mr. Pope: We have come full circle. The Premier wants an election on --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: In the light of the statement made by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), I do want to ask some questions of the Premier as the first minister of the province. I hope he will answer these questions and not simply refer them, because I am not asking for his legal opinion. I am asking what he intends to do politically in the light of the announcement by the federal government yesterday.

Ever since the agreement was signed in September, the Premier has had all this time to determine whether or not the province is going to challenge this agreement in the courts by way of a reference from this province to the Court of Appeal and from there, we all understand, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us whether it is the government’s intention to so challenge this legislation and, in particular, whether it is his intention to challenge section 9 of the act that was proposed yesterday by Mr. Crosbie, which gives the federal government the authority to pass regulations directly in terms of provincial areas of jurisdiction. I would like to ask the Premier whether it is his intention to launch such a challenge.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said before, we are in a thorough review of the complete piece of legislation. I think the Attorney General’s contribution today is a significant one, as it adds to a discussion right across this country.

I can tell my honourable friend, as I told the federal Minister of International Trade, that we reserve our right, obviously, to launch a court action on a number of potential matters. But all those matters are under analysis at present and I will share my views with the honourable member in due course.

Mr. B. Rae: This just is not acceptable. The Premier, first of all, said he needed an election to get a mandate on free trade. He said there could be no deal. Those were the words he himself spoke during the election, not only in terms of his speeches but in terms of paid advertising by the Liberal Party.

When we had the signing of the agreement, he said, “I have to wait to see the full text.” When we got the full text, he said, “I have to wait to see the legislation.” Finally, now that they have seen the legislation and it is there -- and if I may say so, it is not that complicated; the concept is not that difficult -- is it the view of the Premier that the federal government has the authority to legislate directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend may think it is simple, and to his superior mind it may well be, but to a whole range of constitutional experts that is not necessarily the view. There are many aspects to this legislation that are being thought out in some considerable detail, and this is the first part of that.

My honourable friend, had he had the opportunity, may have issued the writ yesterday. I have no idea. Unlike the parties opposite, we are not, shall we say, extremists, as my honourable friend is. We are charged with a thoughtful direction on this matter and we assume our responsibility.

Mr. B. Rae: Just for the record, I want the Premier to know what I would have done. I would have fought this from 1985. That is when I would have started the fight. I would not have waited until it is far too late to do anything, and sat on the fence and dithered, and gone to the people and said, “I need a mandate,” got a mandate and then done nothing with the 94 members I had. That is what the Premier has done and history will judge.

I want to go to the specific question.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You’re out of order.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer will have his day. The Deputy Premier will have his occasion to defend his budget on another day. The question today is for the Premier.

I am not asking the Premier to analyse the entire agreement. I am asking him to look at section 9. Section 9 is that section which states very clearly that the federal government is reserving -- not reserving simply, but saying it has the right and will pass regulations to give effect to the agreement in those areas of provincial jurisdiction. I would like to ask the Premier, if he is not going to challenge that section, why in the name of goodness is he not going to challenge that section and how can anybody take him seriously if he is not even prepared to challenge that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the advice of my honourable colleague. He took his views to the people of this province some time ago.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You took your views too.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You took your views too.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Indeed we did and we were charged with the responsibility of exercising thoughtful leadership; so I say to my honourable friend his approach to these matters has been rejected.

I am working closely with the Attorney General and the legal advisers on this matter. Our views on the nature of this agreement are very clear. We do not think it is a good deal; we think it is a bad deal for this country. We are analysing the constitutional implications of this matter, not just as it pertains to section 9, but a number of other sections as well.

I think if my honourable friend has the time to read the Attorney General’s document and look at the reaction by others, he will see that the implications are probably reasonably broad. That is why we have to look at this in a constitutional context, and we will share our views with my honourable friend. If his view is that we should have acted yesterday, then he is entitled to his opinion on that. He would have acted without this particular document, but we are looking at it and we will share our views and our course of action with him.

Mr. B. Rae: It is true that the Premier and I and the leader of the third party all took our views to the people in August. The only difference between the Premier and me is that my views have not changed and his have.

Mr. Speaker: Is your next question to the Premier?

Mr. B. Rae: No.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. I have in my hand a copy of a document which is an internal Workers’ Compensation Board document entitled Proposed Changes to Act, dated November 1987. It contains over 100 proposed changes to the Workers’ Compensation Act and it has, as they say, come into my hands. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he agrees with the board when it suggests that the definition of the word “accident” should be changed so as to restrict the rights of workers to compensation?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not comment on internal documents. It is a document that has not been generated out of the Ministry of Labour. I understand that document was prepared by some lower-level officials within the Workers’ Compensation Board. It has not been considered by the board of directors and is not worthy of comment here in the Legislature.

Mr. B. Rae: I have no idea whether the people who have produced this document are lower-level, or were then or are now or will be tomorrow, I do not know, but what I do know is this document is quite extensive. It is obvious from his answer that the minister has seen it.

Interjection.

Mr. B. Rae: How can he say he has not seen it if he knows who produced it? This truly is a miraculous minister who says, “I have not seen the document, but I know it was written by lower-level officials and has not reached the board of directors.”

If he is not prepared to comment on the definition of the word “accident,” is he prepared perhaps to answer this question: Does the minister agree with the proposal that all combination or so-called stacking of Canada pension plan and permanent disability pension plan benefits will be stopped if this proposal comes into force? Does the minister agree with that particular proposal?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Now and again the Leader of the Opposition is full of sound and fury and what he says signifies very little. Let me just tell him that the document was brought to my attention to the extent that I was told, “The Leader of the Opposition probably will ask you about a document that was prepared, a series of amendments that had been within the consideration of some officials within the Workers’ Compensation Board.”

Therefore, quite simply, I realize the document exists and that it was prepared by some officials within the board. It was not prepared by officials within the Ministry of Labour and there is no pride of authorship in that document on my part.

He talks about the redefinition of “accident.” I can simply tell him that we are not now considering any redefinition of the word “accident” within the Workers’ Compensation Act.

1410

Mr. B. Rae: This minister is the first minister since 1915 to preside over a reduction in benefits from the Workers’ Compensation Board; the first minister. This is a rather dubious distinction. This is the first minister who has presided over a net reduction in terms of the way in which awards are made by the board.

I wonder if the minister can tell us how he feels being the first Minister of Labour since 1915 to preside over a reduction in benefits.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: We all have our firsts. The Leader of the Opposition is the first Leader of the Opposition to preside over a party that lost seats in the last election and to claim a magnificent victory on September 10.

Mr. B. Rae: There hasn’t been an election in which we haven’t declared a victory. You name an election when I haven’t declared a victory.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order; response.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I really have an answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, if --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I simply tell the Leader of the Opposition that in due course I will be presenting legislation in this House which I think will make the workers’ compensation system more equitable and fair to those who are claimants, a better system in terms of vocational rehabilitation and a system that will provide greater equity and greater humanity to the injured worker community, which in my view is my primary responsibility as Minister of Labour, and I intend to exercise that responsibility as carefully and as judiciously as I can.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier. I have to say that we too share some of the concerns that have been expressed with respect to the response of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on the trade agreement. It would appear that we have got the worst of both worlds. We have a government that is opposed to an agreement and will not fight it, and yet we do not have a government that is in favour of the agreement and is prepared to work with the federal government to take advantage of some of the very real benefits within that agreement.

Since in the election of last year he took a very, very strong position relative to all the things he could do in order to stop this agreement, I ask the Premier his position. I understand full well what the New Democrats would do had they won the election; they would be taking this matter to court, obviously, or taking some other steps. Had we won the election, we would be working with the federal government to implement the trade agreement. What is it that his government is prepared to do other than to sit in the radical centre and do nothing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is absolutely right. We do have the worst of both worlds: We have him and the New Democratic Party.

I believe this government has expressed its view very clearly on the nature and the quality of this particular agreement. I will not go through the history of the entire matter, but we think this brings the Americans to the table in this country in a way that is unprecedented in our history and that will reduce a lot of our collective power to make decisions about our own future.

We are undergoing a thorough analysis of this document at the present time and we will share our views with the member on that matter. We have an enormous number of concerns. They will be laid against the benchmark of the analysis the Attorney General has put forward. I understand the temptation to give quick and superficial answers for my friend opposite, but let me tell him, this is a complicated situation and we will share it with him. The member is quite right; he supports this deal and we do not believe it is in the national interest, as many other people do not believe it is in the national interest.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: But you are not prepared to stop it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, I say to my honourable friend that apart from his hooting and hollering, he does not have any particular ideas on how to work this out in a thoughtful, legal way. I can tell my honourable friend that the Attorney General is working on that matter now with his colleagues and will share that with him in due course.

Mr. Brandt: When the Premier talks about being quick, slick and superficial, he had it in spades on September 10 when he sold his position to the people of this province and then completely turned it around, as he is doing today in this House, I have to tell him. While the Premier of this province is dallying around with a nonposition, not moving one way or the other with respect to the trade agreement, let me tell him what the province of Quebec is doing.

The province of Quebec is taking advantage of the opportunities of an open border between ourselves and the United States to send trade missions into that country to let them know that they welcome a trade opportunity to increase their exports into that market. I will tell the Premier what his government has done: It has closed two trade offices in the United States and it now has a part-time man looking after the New York office.

Is the Premier prepared to take any initiatives to enhance Ontario’s trade with the United States, and if so, what might those initiatives be?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend knows quite well of the initiatives that have been undertaken by this government in the Far East and Europe as well as in the United States. As a matter of fact, I think my honourable friend joined us in Japan on one of the trade missions and of course, as he usually is, he was a very significant addition to that particular mission.

The trade will continue with or without this agreement. I do not think my honourable friend would want to give the impression that trade would stop if this agreement does not go on. What it really does is remove our power as a country to make decisions to enhance our capacity to trade internationally in the future. It is not as if this government is against trade, and I do not think he would want to cast it in that way. It is a question of whether this deal has enhanced our capacity to build a competitive society in the future, and we do not believe that it has. Trade will continue regardless.

Mr. Brandt: Let me thank the Premier for his compliments with respect to my input to the Far East trade mission. I appreciate that, and some day I will take him along for a ride too. I meant that in a charitable way.

Mr. Speaker: I presume you have a supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: My final supplementary to the Premier is in connection with the issue of our export trade with the United States. I did not get an answer to my first question, which was with respect to initiatives to be taken by his government to enhance our trade with the US market. Let me remind the Premier -- I know that he is aware of these facts, and I find myself somewhat taken aback by the fact that, as a former businessman, he would not want to find a way to enhance our marketability to our largest trading partner -- fully 90 per cent of all of the exports out of this province go to the United States. The Premier is well aware of that. One of the things this trade document does is to maintain that kind of civility of trade between two of the major trading partners in the entire world, Canada and the United States.

What I am asking the government to do -- and, through the Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) -- is to begin to take some of the initiatives that Alberta and British Columbia and Quebec have already undertaken with respect to trade missions into that country to improve our access to that market.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the question has been asked.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: As soon as you got up, I started my question.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me I heard a question.

Mr. Brandt: Will the Premier seriously take under consideration, even though he indicates he is opposed to the trade agreement, some initiatives into the American market by reopening some of those trade offices or by aggressively pursuing market opportunities that will present themselves to this province if he moves now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think we necessarily increase trade by adding bureaucracy, I say to my honourable friend. But let me say, if he followed the initiatives of this government in the last two years, with the Premier’s Council -- very substantive things to build the competitive infrastructure in this province -- my friend would know we are way beyond the question he just asked. There are the things that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has done in the budget with respect to capital --

Mr. Brandt: Oh, that’ll help. Oh, that’s a sweetheart, that is.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Of course it will.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, my honourable friend does not understand basic economics.

He compares us to Quebec. Let me tell him what they are doing in Quebec, for my honourable friend’s enlightenment. I just got this Canadian Press wire; it says:

“Free trade legislation tabled in the Commons on Tuesday represents an intrusion into provincial affairs, says Pierre MacDonald, Quebec minister of foreign trade.

“‘It is unacceptable to the government of Quebec,’ MacDonald said, citing an article of the bill which specifies that Ottawa retains all residual power to apply the free trade law. ‘It’s obvious this article is an interference in provincial jurisdiction.’”

My honourable friend can see that they are starting to catch up now to the things that we have been saying for some time.

1420

Mr. Pope: In the meantime, the Premier of Quebec supports the free trade agreement, and Quebec is leading trade missions in the United States that are going to create more jobs and more economic opportunities for the people of Quebec. The Premier of Ontario refuses to help the people of Ontario in the same way.

We have seen the evolution of the Premier’s position on the free trade agreement. What he is saying now is by no stretch of the imagination what he said to the people of Ontario in 1987. He promised a veto. He promised he could stop it. He promised a constitutional challenge. Now he is talking about a public debate. That is not what he said in 1987; that is not what he said or what he promised.

We now have an agreement that has been signed for some months now. We now have implementing legislation. The Premier is still toying around with whether or not there will be a challenge eventually under some regulation or not. I want to know, will there be a constitutional challenge mounted? Will it be heard before January 1, 1989, when this agreement goes into effect?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think I was asked that question a few moments ago, and I think I answered it then, but I will answer it again for my honourable friend. There are many, many options in front of this government at the present time and they are all being explored. We do not rule out a constitutional challenge by any stretch of the imagination, and I told the federal minister exactly that. We reserve our right to do that. Discussing all options, as we are, we will share those with the members when we have reached a conclusion.

Mr. Pope: This is a major agreement. It has economic consequences in terms of employment for men and women in this province. It has consequences on the small business sector in terms of new, enhanced economic opportunities for expansion and growth. It has consequences on the resource sector of this province.

We now have an agreement in place, and implementing legislation has been introduced. There needs to be some certainty on whether or not the businesses and the working men and women of this province can proceed under the terms of a free trade agreement as implemented by federal law; that date is January 1, 1989. Is the Premier going to leave everyone in this province hanging, including the working men and women, or is he going to get off it and start taking a position and mount a challenge before January 1, 1989, if he intends to?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend is jumping to conclusions. The legislation was introduced yesterday in the House. It has not passed and it is not the law of the land, as he is aware. There are two national parties that are against the situation. It does not come into effect until January 1, and it also depends to a large measure on what comes back to the US legislation as well. We have time to look at that, and I can tell my honourable friend that we will be sharing those views with him shortly.

Mr. Pope: The Premier knows that is not acceptable. It gives no certainty to working men and women in the province of Ontario. It gives no certainty to the business community in this province who can take advantage of this trade agreement and implementing legislation.

The Premier knows the deadline is January 1. Is he going to do anything to prevent businesses of this province from taking advantage of this federal legislation in the trade agreement? Is he going to prevent them from doing it? Is he going to allow them to do it and cut them off at the knees later on with a constitutional challenge? Does he not think we have a right to know today, exactly what his constitutional and legal position is going to be so that there can be some certainty, so that the business community can take advantage of this arrangement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As usual, I think my honourable friend is completely misstating and overstating the case and the situation. As I have said, we are under no obligation in our view to implement matters that we believe are in provincial jurisdiction. I have said that before and that continues to be my view. With respect to what we do legally, we will share that with the members in the not-too-distant future.

As to what happens politically in Ottawa over the next few months, my honourable friend may think there is certainty there, but there are many others who do not share that view. I have said before that I believe the people of this country will pass judgement on this document somehow or other in the not-too-distant future. My guess is they will find it sorely wanting.

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The Minister of Housing will know that on May 20, Toronto city council strongly endorsed a motion calling for the province to introduce a land speculation tax.

In view of the fact that the Minister of Housing and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) have been calling on municipalities to do something in order to make housing more available in the province, can the minister tell us if she endorses that motion by Toronto city council in order to indicate that her words are not hollow.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am glad to be able to talk about the work that we are doing with municipalities, which the honourable member knows is taking very seriously all their views. Just last week, on Friday, in fact, I visited Ottawa and worked with them to sign a framework agreement on the way in which we are going to be working on housing issues together.

To respond to the honourable member’s particular comment about the vote from the municipal council, I of course will take seriously any recommendations and suggestions made by any municipal council in the province.

Mr. Laughren: The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) says no, the Premier says he will think about it and the Minister of Housing says she will look at it as well, and think about it and take it seriously.

I will give the minister a specific example that might make the point for her. On January 29, City Shelter Management -- the minister may be aware of that company -- purchased 186 Geoffrey Street for $304,000 and then filled the building up with rooming-house tenants. City Shelter has now put the building up for sale at the price of $429,000, $125,000 more than the original purchase price and it is indicating vacant possession of the building, which means that those tenants will now be looking for alternative shelter, as well.

That is not the only thing that City Shelter did.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Laughren: One other example, if I might, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I think it is fair. It is fair.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to be as fair as possible to all members; I know you are aware of that. However, surely one example would lead into a supplementary.

Mr. Laughren: I will rest my case on that example because surely it is a strong enough example that the minister simply cannot ignore.

My question to the minister is, given the city council’s strong endorsation of a land speculation tax and given this kind of evidence that that is exactly what is driving up prices, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area, could the minister tell us why she will not endorse that motion by the city of Toronto?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am, of course, very concerned by any evidence of significant increases in housing in this province because they make life harder for people who want to buy homes, but the member should know that this issue is one that is going to involve a variety of ministries in discussion. In order to make any decision, it would have to be the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), the Treasurer and various other people who are involved in the discussion.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On May 1, 1988, David Elgie, a disabled citizen from Fergus, was advised by Dr. Hugh Cameron of the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital, Wellesley Street, that his hip replacement operation would not be booked until April 4, 1989 -- one full year. On May 5, 1988, Mr. Elgie was advised that the date for his surgery had been postponed until June 12, 1990 -- two full years.

Mr. Elgie’s former hip replacement has deteriorated. He is in constant pain and can only walk with the assistance of crutches. He cannot tolerate the pain for another two years and has asked for my advice.

David Elgie has asked me if he should give up on the Ontario health care system and seek an operation in the United States. Would the minister tell me what I should tell David Elgie to do?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We discussed this issue in the House on a number of occasions and, as the member knows, I am very concerned about the length of some waiting lines at hospitals for specific procedures. We are at all times reviewing that. What it tells me is that we have to have the kind of planning process in place so that we can address where to expand services to meet those kinds of needs.

As I have said before, there are a number of hospitals in the province that offer that kind of service. We know that the waiting lines are different lengths at different hospitals. We know as well that the physicians prioritize where on the waiting list their patients are placed. I will be willing, if the member would like to give me details of this particular case, to provide him with a list of all the facilities that offer that surgery so he can seek another opinion.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I did send the minister full details a couple weeks ago, but David Elgie is just one example of a disabled citizen who is having difficulties with the Ontario health care system. He has taken the day to come to Toronto to present his case. Mr. Elgie is in the Speaker’s gallery. Would the minister take just two minutes of her time after question period to meet with Mr. Elgie so that he may have the opportunity to describe to her personally how the health care system has failed him?

1430

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am always pleased to meet citizens who have come to question period and I would be pleased to have a chat with the member’s constituent following question period. But let me remind the member that waiting lists and waiting lines are not new. They are something we have been experiencing for some 5 to 10 years in this province. One of the things we want to do, as we have a well-planned and well-managed system, is to be able to respond to the needs of the people of this province so that they can have needed surgery as close to home as possible when they need it.

We rely on the physicians of this province to offer that surgery and make the determinations of where on the waiting list people are placed, according to their needs for surgery. We also know services are provided across this province. We monitor on an ongoing basis not only those lines, but also seek advice from the district health councils as to where we should expand those services. It is an issue I am very concerned about and one we are attempting to address through good planning and good management in our health care system.

PREMIER’S COUNCIL

Mr. J. B. Nixon: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. In the recent report of the Premier’s Council, entitled Competing in the New Global Economy, there were a number of recommendations to promote higher-value-added manufacturing by Ontario exporters.

The report makes it clear that a number of the council’s recommendations are based on a consensus of labour, the business community, financial institutions and the scientific community. What is the government doing to implement those recommendations and to support this consensus?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Members will know that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in his recent budget announced three initiatives which are going to address three of the major concerns of the Premier’s Council. One of them has to do with the research and development superallowance, whereby large firms will have an additional 25 per cent allowance and small firms will have 35 per cent, and that will encourage research and development.

Another area is the technology personnel program, whereby small companies can engage engineers and technologists to help them compete.

The last one deals with the strategic procurement policy, whereby we are going to provide incentives for companies to get involved in supplying goods and services to the provincial government.

All of these things will go a long way to bringing Ontario into the technological forefront we think is essential.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: My supplementary question has to do with the future of the Premier’s Council. A number of the council’s ideas and recommendations appear quite worth while and respond to the dramatic changes that are taking place in our global trading economy. As these changes continue to occur, will the Premier’s Council continue to meet and will it continue to work within its same mandate?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The Premier’s Council will certainly continue to meet. It is going to monitor the various programs that are under the technology fund and, as the member will know, there is $1 billion in there and there are some very substantial programs that are going to be ongoing.

They are also going to look at what they think is the major thrust of what we have to do, that is, to look at people. They are going to look at the whole area of education, skills development, worker adjustment and that whole area of concern to us and they are going to have subcommittees which will be investigating all of those areas.

SEWAGE DUMP SITE

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It is concerning a situation of which he is very much aware, that is, the continued dumping of raw sewage in Dill township in my riding. The minister will know that for many months now his ministry has allegedly been attempting to transfer the dumping operations from the present site to a new site on the Burwash property.

Most recently, I was advised that two issues are still outstanding. First, a site survey of the new site has to be completed and, second, some form of leasing arrangement has to be agreed upon between the ministries of Government Services and the Environment before the transfer can take place.

Given the fact that an agreement was reached in September 1987 between his ministry and Government Services to transfer control of the land to the Ministry of the Environment, why is it now that we are in the position that these types of issues are delaying the transfer?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is quite correct when she indicates that this is an extremely complicated problem, which has involved not only a number of government agencies at the provincial level and the local level, but also citizens in the area and a private operator. I think the member has also recognized something I learned about two days into being the Minister of the Environment and several days, I guess, into being an MPP, and that is that nobody wants it in anybody’s backyard and that even the new site that has been selected as being a superior site has people who are opposed to that -- surprise, surprise.

The member has worked very hard on this issue, as did her predecessor, and we are going to try to resolve it just as quickly as possible. She is justifiably impatient because there have been a number of legal complications which have prevented the kind of solution that she and I would like to see at the earliest point in time.

However, I can assure her that we will continue to work with the Ministry of Government Services, with other government agencies and with the local government in an effort to try to smooth out the legal process and remove the legal impediments to what I consider to be a final and good solution to this problem.

Miss Martel: There is good reason why I am impatient. Let me just refer to two letters that I have received, one a copy from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the other from the minister himself.

In a letter from the Premier to the residents of that area, he said, “I am advised that the ministry” -- of the Environment – “expects to finalize site transfer arrangements in the near future.” That was March 28, 1988.

The minister himself sent a letter to me dated April 6,1988, where he said, “I am confident that the present negotiations will lead to a relocation of the septage dump site by early May.”

Can the minister please advise this House and the residents when a relocation of this site is going to take place?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It would be my hope that we would be able to resolve this problem in the relatively near future. I know that is not as definitive an answer as she would like, but I can say next week and it might not happen next week.

I can say we will make a maximum effort to work with her and the other authorities in the area to ensure that we have a suitable site. I will underline the fact that whatever site is chosen is not going to be suitable to the people who reside in that specific area. All of us really are, I guess to put it bluntly, sewage treatment plants to a certain extent and we all produce waste.

Mrs. Grier: Some more than others.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Some more than others.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Some of the members may not entirely agree that is always the case, but I want to assure her that I will do everything I can to ensure that the process will move more quickly. I hope to have this matter resolved in the relatively near future, working with all local authorities.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In a recent article in the Toronto Star, it has been suggested that the ministry should be setting guidelines to determine who should receive costly heart surgery. Over the past several weeks she has told hospitals to control their costs, but she has yet to tell hospitals which patients should or should not receive treatment. Does the minister not agree that it is her responsibility as Minister of Health to set guidelines for the provision of procedures such as heart surgery?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, that is a premise which I do not believe is appropriate at this time for the ministry. I believe and rely on the advice from the physicians who perform the surgery and who recommend patients for care.

Mr. Eves: Funny she should speak of physicians. Dr. Tirone David, head of cardiovascular surgery at the Toronto Hospital, was quoted as saying:

“I do 400 (open-heart operations) a year and I always lose patients while they are waiting. I lose at least two or three patients every year from my long waiting list and I lose another 10 or so from my short list.”

In case the minister cannot add, that is a minimum of 12 or 13 a year. This is a tragic situation. Every single cardiovascular surgeon in Metro Toronto has said that he or she loses the same number of patients, on average, every single year.

Dr. David goes on to say, “I don’t sleep at night because of this.” Does the minister sleep at night?

Interjections.

Mr. Eves: You people do not want to spend any money on anything.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The issue of waiting lists, particularly in the area of cardiovascular care, is something we have discussed in this House on a number of occasions. We know as well that this issue is not a new one. I have met recently, as I told the member, with representatives from the Toronto hospitals -- cardiologists, cardiovascular surgeons and district health councils -- who monitor on an ongoing basis those needs.

1440

We recognize that there is a need to increase capacity, but we also know that this has been a result of some unexpected trends. In fact, there is divergent opinion which concerns me greatly. We know that without an increase in the disease a wider range of individuals are being recommended for surgery, and there are some questions about the individuals who are being recommended, as well as how long they have to wait.

It is something we review on an ongoing basis. I trust the medical judgement of those who advise me. If they feel, as they do, that there is a need to increase the capacity, we will move to do that.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Last winter I approached the minister and pointed out the funding problems for Jean Vanier High School in the town of Collingwood in Simcoe county. I pointed out, as I understand others did as well, that the burden of financing this school was bleeding the finances of that school board. I wonder if the minister can update us as to the situation and status of full funding for that school.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I know this is a matter of concern to the member and I thank him for giving me notice of his question.

As he is aware, the school was previously denied funding under extension because of concerns about its viability. The director of the Simcoe County Roman Catholic Separate School Board wrote to the Planning and Implementation Commission asking it to review the circumstances at Jean Vanier High School. I am pleased to inform the member that the recommendation of the Planning and Implementation Commission was to extend funding in the coming year. That decision has been conveyed to the board.

Mr. Owen: I want to thank the minister for that favourable decision.

In the community, there has been some concern expressed as to the quality and performance of the school because the full funding has not been available. I wonder if the minister can give some comment or reassurance to the people involved as to the quality of what is being provided at Jean Vanier.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I think it is fair to say that, its being such a small school with such a modest enrolment, the concern is the viability of the programs that will be made available. Over the course of the next three years, the central Ontario regional office will continue to monitor the programs there, but the extension of funding no doubt will assist that board in delivering quality programs at that facility.

Mr. Farnan: Today being Canada Fitness Day, it seems appropriate to draw the attention of the Minister of Education to the situation that exists at St. Vincent de Paul School in Cambridge. It seems absolutely extraordinary that in 1988 the Minister of Education would permit the opening of a new school without a gymnasium. Given the fact that St. Vincent de Paul School is designed so that additions can be added to the existing structure, will the minister today give a guarantee that he will provide the funds and have a gymnasium added to St. Vincent de Paul School for September 1988?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I appreciate the member’s concern about the school facilities that are available in his riding, but I should point out to the member that the approval of capital funds is usually done on the basis of capital expenditure forecasts that are submitted each fall by the various school boards in Ontario. Prior to my attendance at the chamber today, I did look into the capital expenditure forecast of the board relative to St. Vincent de Paul. Its request this year was solely for the approval of a portapac addition to that facility. The capital expenditure plan that was released some three or four weeks ago provided funds for that portapac extension, but I do have to inform the member that there was no request for a gymnasium contained in that forecast.

Mr. Farnan: I accept the information the minister has given as being valid. I point out that when the parents of this school met to discuss their concerns, they could not even meet in the school but had to meet in an adjoining school.

I have a petition here signed by 378 parents. Among their concerns are lack of gym facilities, the classroom time lost busing children to alternative facilities, and the lack of facilities for assemblies and for intramural and extramural activities.

Looking at the situation as it exists now, will the minister recognize that there is an unfairness to the parents and the children being served in communities whose schools are lacking such basic facilities? Will he grant St. Vincent de Paul School a gym this September and will this minister never again approve a school without a gym facility? Will the minister give these assurances?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I appreciate the concerns of the member and of his constituents and I am happy to receive his petition, but I hope the member will understand that there is very much a shared responsibility in terms of the delivery of education in this province. We rely on the capital expenditure submissions of the various boards of education as to the priority of the needs that exist within his community and others. Certainly, should the board in its October submission indicate this as a capital priority and request the funds, we will consider it. I have to indicate to the member, though, that I do not foresee a circumstance in which I could grant the funds for a project that the board itself does not request.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Premier, again related to the free trade agreement. It concerns Ontario Hydro’s submission last month to the Ontario Energy Board, in which Hydro projected that the free trade agreement will add approximately three per cent to the gross provincial product over the next 10 years. This directly contradicts the Premier’s oft-stated position that the free trade agreement will bring no significant benefit to Ontario. Either one position or the other has to be wrong. They cannot both be right. Does the Premier think the Ontario Hydro position is correct or incorrect?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is an independent crown corporation. It has its views and I have my views. I have no idea what its views are.

Mr. Runciman: That response did not deal with my question at all. It strikes me as a rather remarkable contradiction between the Premier and the province’s largest crown corporation. Surely it is the Premier’s duty to resolve what appears to be a major policy conflict within his government and throughout government and have a uniform policy.

Has the Premier asked Ontario Hydro to take another look at its projection and is he prepared to review his own projection on the free trade agreement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Maybe it just proves that free trade wastes energy. I have no idea. I have not looked at the particular submission of the crown corporation. It is not a pawn of this government any more than this government is a pawn of Ontario Hydro. This may be difficult for my friend to understand, but it is our position that we do not believe this free trade agreement is in the interests of this country. We believe we have invited Uncle Sam to sit over our shoulder on every single decision. I ask my honourable friend to analyse this in a little bit of detail. My guess is he will come to the same conclusion.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

[Applause]

Mrs. Grier: I appreciate the applause, but I wish the members would not take up the time, because the minister usually takes up quite enough on his own behalf.

The minister will be aware that today I released a summary of a variety of reports that show the waterfront in my riding is as polluted as in any urban area around the Great Lakes. Most of that pollution comes from storm sewers which are flowing into the Humber River, the Mimico Creek, the Etobicoke Creek and directly into Lake Ontario.

Can the minister tell the House what precisely he has accomplished in the three years he has been minister to cut down on the runoff into urban watercourses by storm sewers across the province?

1450

Mr. Speaker: I hope it does not take one minute per year.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should ask the permission of the House to have the time for my answer extended.

What the member has conveniently ignored in her presentation, as I would if I were sitting in opposition, is the accomplishments which have been forthcoming as a result of our programs.

First, the member has not mentioned that the Ministry of the Environment has spent, since we became the government, on this specific problem we are talking about, the Toronto waterfront, some $17.5 million, which has triggered, when taking into consideration the other agencies involved in this, some $40 million of expenditures spent on cleaning up the waterfront and dealing with the Humber and Don rivers.

There are at the present time -- and I know the member is an advocate of this -- in the process some four retention tanks in the city of York itself, the beginning, I understand, of some 41 retention tanks which are going to be constructed to deal with this problem. In Etobicoke, the municipality the member represents and represented on municipal council, there is a sewer separation program which has been under way for some time. Municipalities that go into Etobicoke will take away some of the problem that exists when there is an overflow at the sewage treatment plant.

There has been the removal of literally hundreds of illegal connections, cross-sections between sanitary and storm sewers, which has taken place as a result of the action of our ministry and of local municipalities in Etobicoke, North York and York over the past several years.

The upstream rural pollution problems which exist --

Mr. Speaker: I think that is quite complete. That actually gave you time to go through two years.

Mrs. Grier: I think what the minister did was talk about the previous 10 years, and a lot of things that have been implemented by municipalities and a lot of things that have been begun. What I had hoped the minister would say was what precisely he had accomplished in the way of cutting down the runoff into storm sewers, and he has not accomplished anything, as is shown by the data, as is shown by the fact that the Toronto waterfront -- you cannot fish in the water, you cannot swim in it, and I am beginning to be concerned as to whether you ought to drink it.

Usually, when these questions are asked --

Mr. Speaker: And I am waiting for the question.

Mrs. Grier: -- the minister drags out his municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program, and I am quite disappointed that he did not have time to say “MISA” today, because that was what I expected.

My supplementary to the minister is: Given that when he announced his MISA program two years ago, it was supposed to have in place by now monitoring regulations for at least five of the industrial sectors, and given that we have not in place a single monitoring regulation, how does he think the kinds of expenditures he has outlined are going to solve the problem when there is no better control on what is going from industry into those storm sewers?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is going all over the map on this one. She has to make up her mind what question she is going to ask, because the supplementary had nothing at all to do with the original question.

What she is talking about when she channels herself into that area is the municipal aspect of the MISA program. I can tell her that some of her New Democratic Party friends and some Conservative friends who sit on municipal organizations made representations to me, saying in fact that we are moving far too quickly and that we are not giving enough time for consideration and input from the municipalities in dealing with these problems.

The member makes a reference to drinking water. She will know, for instance, that we have a drinking water surveillance program in the province where we look for well over 100 contaminants. We have found they meet the objectives of the Ministry of the Environment, objectives developed by those who are experts in toxicology and health and other areas. She will know we have implemented the plant optimization program in the province where we are upgrading equipment, where we are improving maintenance and where we are providing special training for those who implement it.

When she suggests these other exotic ways of dealing with those, I simply say to her that I met with the people who actually sell those famous systems and not one of them could guarantee that they could remove contaminants in parts per quadrillion.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday, the minister had a very impressive, neatly packaged press kit -- which accomplished a great deal of publicity with all the fact sheets, backgrounders and glossy maps of greater Toronto and area -- to unveil the so-called new transportation announcement of the David Peterson government.

Among the various items outlined in the minister’s press package yesterday was his plan to provide additional commuter trains in the Markham-Scarborough area, which currently accesses the Stouffville line. I want to ask the minister exactly what kinds of studies have been conducted into the feasibility of adding trains to the Markham-Scarborough line and, specifically, what costs such action will incur.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: There are constant and ongoing negotiations with the railways with respect to GO Transit and adding train service in various directions. I think the member should not limit himself to the one line of GO trains. We are looking at some very specific short-term improvements in the congestion that exists in the Metro and surrounding regions today, as well as the vision of the longer-term provision of efficient interregional transportation for all four of those regions, as indicated in the announcement yesterday.

Mr. Cousens: I have reason to believe that the minister would like us to look somewhere else than where he has a problem. We have already spoken with the urban planning group of engineers at Canadian National Railway and also with some GO Transit officials and have learned that not a single basic feasibility study has yet been done on that line. The government did not even bother checking to see if adding a train in Markham is feasible.

The truth is that at least half a dozen complications -- the need for an environmental assessment, signalization, current freight activity and grade separations -- will arise in adding another train to the Stouffville line. In fact, a CN project engineer told us that current load use on the Stouffville line, which feeds into Metro by a CN line along the lakeshore, is now functioning at peak capacity --

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Cousens: -- with just one train. As a result, the CN engineer said that the only way to add a new train to the Stouffville line is by running a train at midnight.

Mr. Speaker: Would the engineer have a question, please?

Mr. Cousens: Why did the minister overlook the consultative process in this regard, and does he plan on running a midnight train for the people in Markham and Scarborough?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member is well aware that wherever we have announced, in the past and present, the expansion of GO service or any other transportation service, continuous negotiation has to go on. In each case, we have been very successful and we will of course be successful with regard to expansion of GO service into Markham.

Certainly, the member’s mayor is very anxious to see it. She was very supportive of the announcement made yesterday, and one of the reasons we are locating the gateways in Milliken and at Steeles is to serve the public in the member’s region.

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week I drew to the attention of the House the need for his ministry to ensure that adequate services are available to young offenders who are serving part of their sentences through fulfilling community service orders.

Community Centre No. 55 in my riding sponsors a CSO operation that has built up a reputation over several years for providing young offenders with innovative rehabilitation programs which help them to become law-abiding, self-supporting members of our society.

Is the minister aware that the continuation of this operation is in jeopardy because the grant offered by his ministry does not cover the costs, at Toronto wage levels, of two full-time staff members, which is the bare minimum needed to provide an adequate program for the case load assigned to them by the courts?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I certainly support the honourable member’s indication that the alternative measures program that she outlined, the community service order, is a valuable component of our services to young offenders. As I am sure she probably knows, we have quite a number of those in various places around the province.

1500

I was not aware specifically of the particular dilemma that she brought to my attention. I will certainly investigate it. I can tell her, however, that the young offenders program all over the province can use more resources. I am hoping that within the next month we will be able to allocate more of our budget to that program. I will certainly look into the specific one that she mentioned. I was not aware of it before.

Ms. Bryden: I am sure the minister is aware that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has announced a new program of alternative measures for young offenders now before the courts. This may result in an increased case load for administrators of CSOs.

Is this the time to let an experienced and highly respected agency like Centre 55 leave the CSO program because it can no longer subsidize what is really part of the judicial system and because it faces staff burnout and staff turnover under the present inadequate funding supplied by the ministry to this very important rehabilitation service for young offenders?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the member rightly points out, the official alternative measures program, which has been introduced by my ministry in just the last little while, along with the various alternatives that she has described, is performing a very effective service.

I point out to her that in the particular situation she described to me, members of my local office staff have been in touch with that agency and have determined along with it that part of the problem is the large number of referrals that are being made to it. My staff and that organization are working together right now to alleviate part of the problem by reducing the significant number of referrals. That is not going to solve the whole problem, but it will, in the short run, deal with part of the stress and tension that the members working in that agency have to face at the present time.

There is a short-term impact, and there will be a longer-term one as we continue to work with the agency.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by approximately 20 residents of Welland. It reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I add my name to it. I support the petition.

AVORTEMENT

M. Pope: M. le Président, j’ai une pétition signée par quinze personnes de ma circonscription électorale de Cochrane-Sud.

«À l’honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario:

« Attendu que le 28 janvier 1988, la Cour suprême du Canada a aboli la Loi sur l’avortement, parce que considérée en opposition à la Charte des droits et libertés;

« Attendu que cette décision laisse les enfants à naître du Canada sans aucune protection légale;

« Nous demandons à votre gouvernement:

« a) de rédiger une loi donnant aux enfants à naître les mêmes droits à la vie, et les mêmes protections que tout autre membre de notre société;

« b) de passer un amendement à la section 251 de la Charte des droits qui outrepasse la décision de la Cour suprême jusqu’à ce que la nouvelle loi entre en vigueur.

« Nous croyons que votre gouvernement a à coeur le respect de la vie, que tous les Canadiens nés, et nous sommes assurés que vous agirez rapidement et sûrement pour le bien de toute notre société canadienne.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Pope: I also have a petition forwarded to me by the Ontario Federation of Labour, signed by approximately 24 residents of the riding of Cochrane South, in opposition to the free trade agreement.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Pope: Finally, I have a petition signed by approximately 80 residents of the riding of Cochrane South with respect to the deregulation of naturopathy.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Charlton: I have a petition on the issue of Sunday shopping.

“To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario residing in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, support the intent of the recommendation of the all-party committee of the Ontario Legislature and the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and recognizing the need for a common pause day for family nurture.

“We therefore call upon Premier David Peterson and his government to pass province-wide legislation rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and uphold Sunday as our common pause day.”

This petition is signed by 208 residents of Hamilton-Wentworth and I have added my own name to the petition.

TAX INCREASES

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a petition signed by 1,000 irate taxpayers in the province of Ontario, which reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“The Ontario budget contains excessive tax increases, which are a direct attack on the middle class. I object, and I demand that you repeal these taxes.”

It goes on further to say, believe it or not, “Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

I have signed my name to this petition and I submit it respectfully to this House.

Mr. Speaker: I noted you were reading from the back of --

Hon. Mr. Conway: What would John Robarts think of this kind of behaviour?

Mrs. Cunningham: He would be very proud.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I noted you were reading from the back of a sign, therefore that must be part of the petition. Would you send that to the table?

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Ms. Bryden: I have the honour to present, on behalf of 80 residents in my riding, a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on the subject of Sunday shopping. The petition states, in part:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and...

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

I have signed this petition and support it.

Mr. Philip: I have a petition signed by 90 residents of Hamilton-Wentworth. Another 20 have signed a similar petition, also from the same area.

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, residing in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, support the intent and recommendation of the all-party committee of the Ontario Legislature and the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and recognizing the need for a common pause day for family nurture.

“We therefore call upon Premier David Peterson and his government to pass province-wide legislation rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and uphold Sunday as our common day of pause.”

I have signed both of these petitions.

Miss Martel: I have a petition signed by 19 residents of the riding of Sudbury East and it reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“In recognition of the importance of a day of pause in our Canadian society, we ask that the Retail Business Holidays Act be maintained and strengthened, that the act remain under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Legislature rather than be transferred to local municipalities for administration.”

I have signed my name to that as well and I am in agreement with them.

1510

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WEED CONTROL ACT / LOI SUR LA DESTRUCTION DES MAUVAISES HERBES

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 138, An Act to revise the Weed Control Act.

L’hon. M. Riddell propose la première lecture du projet de loi 138, Loi de 1988 sur la destruction des mauvaises herbes.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The purpose of the act is to reduce the infestation of agricultural and urban properties with weeds growing outside a landowner’s property, to reduce health hazards from weeds such as ragweed and poison ivy, and to reduce the incidence of plant diseases by controlling alternate host plants; for example, cereal rust on common barberry and European buckthorn. The primary purpose of this amendment is to increase the fines that are levied as well as to update the original legislation. Under the new bill, the minister will have the authority to designate the chief inspector and all municipalities will have the authority to designate local problem weeds as noxious. The increased fines will be a deterrent to potential offenders, particularly developers and absentee landlords.

GRAIN ELEVATOR STORAGE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 139, An Act to amend the Grain Elevator Storage Act, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This act directs the licensing and regulation of grain elevators that store grain for several owners, most of whom are producers. Licensing and inspecting the elevators ensures that the financial interest of the owners is protected. The primary purpose of this amendment to the legislation is the enhancement of the marketing of Ontario grain. This will be accomplished by authorizing grain elevator operators to market the stored produce with the authority of the chief inspector. The grain elevator operator will provide full compensation to the chief inspector for its market value, an approach which will protect the interests of the owners of the grain.

FARM PRODUCTS CONTAINERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 140, An Act to revise the Farm Products Containers Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The Act provides a mechanism for agricultural producer associations to fund themselves through a fee which is added to the sale price of product containers. Since the act names only honey and fruit and vegetable producers, other producer associations cannot participate. Also there is currently no provision for audits which are necessary to ensure the equitable treatment of all producers and container sellers. Under the proposed amendments, the provisions of the act will be extended to any association representing producers of farm products. Producers will be consulted before any proposal for a funding scheme is implemented.

These amendments allow producer associations to generate revenue from their members to support the activities of their associations. The proposed revisions comply with ministry policies of reduced direct financial support to producer associations and encourages industry association self-sufficiency.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO CONVENTION CENTRE CORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. O’Neil moved first reading of Bill 141, An Act respecting Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corporation.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: This legislation proposes to confirm the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre as an agency of the crown and to clarify and formalize the provincial government’s relationship with this facility. As a crown agency, this facility will continue to enhance Ontario’s growing profile as a major tourism destination.

OTTAWA CONGRESS CENTRE ACT / LOI SUR LE CENTRE DES CONGRÈS D’OTTAWA

Hon. Mr. O’Neil moved first reading of Bill 142, An Act respecting Ottawa Congress Centre.

L’hon. M. O’Neil propose la première lecture du projet de loi 142, Loi concernant le Centre des congrès d’Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: This legislation proposes to confirm the Ottawa Congress Centre as an agency of the crown and to formalize the provincial government’s relationship with this facility. As a crown agency, the Ottawa Congress Centre will also continue to enhance Ontario’s growing profile as a major tourism destination.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved second reading of Bill 98, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The comments were made at first reading. I understand other members, though, have some comments and one member of our side has something else to add.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this bill, which I think is for the most part a bill that provides for a number of housekeeping items amending the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. However, there are several concerns that I would like to express, most specifically in the area of some sections of the bill that might be viewed as threatening by municipalities in terms of some additional powers which the minister is taking in terms of controlling road development, within towns, villages and townships in particular, in the province.

The road planners in those communities might question what the minister’s more specific intentions are in terms of changes, in particular to subsection 90 of the original act. I would like to know from the minister whether his intention is to interfere at all with local planning, and in cases where the minister is requiring potentially additional expenditures in order to upgrade roads in the province, whether the minister will be providing the funds to do that.

The powers to provide additional funding for road improvements are there, but we would like to know, in terms of the regulations that are going to come with this legislation, how the minister will be intending to act and whether in fact municipalities will be bearing the costs of an additional burden being imposed on them.

1520

I would also express some concerns, which my colleague is going to go into to a greater extent, in terms of restrictions of practices along the King’s highway within a distance of 45 metres or about 150 feet of any of the King’s highways. There are restrictions on a number of activities by businesses or individuals, particularly farms, along the King’s highway in terms of selling goods or produce and there would appear to be some additional restrictions being put in place, or at least the minister has the power to provide those restrictions. I have some concerns about whether there are going to be grandfathering provisions and what kinds of regulations we will have in place to provide the permits that are provided for under this act to allow activities to go on along the highways of the province.

The minister is expanding his powers as well in terms of, it would appear, towns in southern Ontario where he did not previously have powers as strong under the old legislation.

I would just hope we will get some assurances from the minister on those points.

Other than that, I think, in principle, we can support this bill. We would just like to hear some assurances from the minister on the points I have raised today.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any honourable member wish to comment upon the remarks made by the member for Sault Ste. Marie?

Mr. Philip: The member for Sault Ste. Marie raised the issue, I think more specifically, of subsections 6(2) and 6(3). I guess the concern I would have is, why is it that it appears the minister has not consulted the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on this? When we called their research department yesterday, they were not aware of this bill or any of its implications. Why would he not consult with this body that might have an opinion on the bill? Has it been a safety problem that he needs to enforce this? If so, what substantiation can he provide that shows this is necessary?

All of us are in favour of safety, and I think if the minister can document that this is a problem I guess one has to be supportive of it. The key word is “may.” It gives a discretion, and we recognize then that because of this discretion, it need not necessarily apply in all or even a majority or even very many cases.

I would like to know, as my colleague had raised the issue, exactly when does the minister anticipate or in what types of instances does he anticipate that these two sections will apply? Are there any regulations that are in the process of being drafted that he would like to share with us that will give us some assurance this section will not be used in a capricious way to in any way interfere with farmers who may want to sell their products from roadside stands? Many of us, even city dwellers like ourselves, enjoy purchasing fresh food and produce from these farmers along the highways.

Mr. McCague: Most of this bill is welcome and is of a housekeeping nature. I, too, have the concern that has been mentioned by the two New Democratic Party members who have spoken about the roadside sales and I understand that the minister may be saying something about that a little later on or maybe not. I hope he does or else we might convince him that we should have a little discussion in committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. Conway: George, you’re getting cantankerous in your old age.

Mr. McCague: Yes. As one gets older that is what happens, but the House leader has caused most of it.

However, I would just like the minister to comment on the request to increase the size of the road committees up to 10. I do not know where that originated. I would like to know.

On the business of counties having the legislative authority to approve or to regulate construction and alteration of entrances, I thought that the county and the townships had that function now. The operative words may be “legislative authority.” I am not sure about that. I would like the minister to comment on that.

With respect to the development of roads in southern Ontario, it is welcomed that at least the minister will have the authority to fund those. I guess the big question will be whether he has any money to fund those. However, we will hear about that a little later.

The bill does allow for the ministry to provide funds for the improvement and upgrading of rail and intercity bus terminals. That also is welcome. It is nice to have it there. It will be really great if the minister has some money for it.

I would be content to proceed with this bill without committee of the whole if the minister is prepared to answer those questions and to offer the explanation for the authority to stop roadside sales. To a lot of people that is a very important part of farm income. Many of them have existed for many years. I know it is very difficult to get a new entrance for a roadside stand.

I would hope that at the very least the minister would see fit to honour existing arrangements that his staff out there has with the local farmers and not interrupt that at all. I can understand his reluctance to approve others, that is his reluctance to approve entrances in many cases, as we all know.

The Acting Speaker: Would any honourable member wish to comment upon the remarks made by the honourable member for Simcoe West? If not, would any other honourable member wish to participate?

Mr. Reycraft: I want to take just a minute or two to speak in support of Bill 98. As has already been indicated, many of the sections in this bill are of a housekeeping nature but there is one in particular that certainly will be welcomed by a number of municipalities. I refer to section 4 of the bill.

I think all members will recognize the fact that counties and other governments need to control and regulate accesses onto the roads in order to protect the traffic carrying capacity of those roads. It has been assumed by most municipalities that for some time municipalities could do that using their authority under either the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act or else under the Planning Act.

However, I want to draw to the attention of members that a decision of the Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario not too long ago, on April 11, 1988, changed those circumstances somewhat. The Supreme Court ruled that the road committee of Middlesex county had no jurisdiction to control accesses in that way.

There certainly is a concern in Middlesex, and in other municipalities as well, that this may lead to a loss of the existing traffic carrying capacities of their roads. But the court ruled that they did not have the jurisdiction to control accesses unless they had been declared controlled-access roads under section 96 of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

I know I have heard often over the last several weeks from Middlesex county engineer Don Husson and warden Richard Bolton about their concern about this decision and the apparent loss of authority of the counties and their road committees, and subsequently, also suburban road commissions across the province.

1530

Perhaps this addresses somewhat the concern that was raised by the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) in his remarks to explain why there is a need to amend clause 31(1)(b) of the existing act to clearly give counties that kind of authority. I certainly support the bill and in particular support section 4 of it and that amendment.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: With reference to the issue raised by my friend the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom), section 90 really deals with the development road program that currently exists in northern Ontario and that currently does not exist in southern Ontario. It is simply making that change apply across southern Ontario. The rate of funding, of subsidy, is upwards of 100 per cent, so the rules will not change for the north. The rules for the south will be the same as for the north.

With respect to the other matter raised by both the member for Sault Ste. Marie and the member for Simcoe West, the issue of the right-of-way or off-the-right-of-way sales of farm products, etc., it is not our intention whatever to prohibit or eliminate those that are within the guidelines of 45 metres. If it is not a site-specific safety problem, they will not be changed. The only requirement will be that if they are on the road allowance, they simply will be controlled to the extent of requiring a permit.

There has been some concern expressed by the Ontario Provincial Police. It is not our intention, I can assure the member, to eliminate those roadside sales, but from time to time there have been certain structures located just too close for public safety. We want to be able to regulate those, but we certainly are not going to be putting these folks out of business.

With respect to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip), again the site selection or site-specific problem existed, as I explained earlier. There have been very few occasions -- I can think of only two in the last three years -- that have been brought to my attention. In each case, an accommodation was reached. As I said earlier, it is not our intention to interfere with that free market, with the roadside stands we all visit, and probably many of us did this past long weekend.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND ACT / LOI SUR LE FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO (CONTINUED / SUITE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 116, An Act respecting the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund.

Suite du débat ajourné sur la motion de deuxième lecture du projet de loi 116, Loi concernant le Fonds patrimonial du Nord de l’Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): It is my understanding the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) adjourned this debate. Is there any other member who wishes to participate in the debate?

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to address this bill, which is the culmination of a lot of work by our party, a culmination in terms of what the Liberals want to present in terms of their approach to a heritage fund. I wish that it would have been us who had the opportunity to actually present this bill, because there are some serious deficiencies with the implementation as proposed by this current Liberal government.

The need for a northern Ontario heritage fund has been well established and has been strongly advocated by northerners for many years. Our party has supported this concept and promoted it across northern Ontario for well over a decade now.

In 1986, we finally got the will of the Legislature to support the resolution of my former colleague, Jim Foulds, a former member for Port Arthur, which supported the concept of the establishment of a northern Ontario heritage fund in the province. We were pleased at that point to get support by members from all three parties for that concept. Unfortunately, the government refused to act at that point in the implementation of such a fund. The first action or commitment by the province was in the budget, not the budget this year but the budget last year, 1987, at which time the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) hailed the northern Ontario heritage fund as a great initiative of his government and committed the province to put $30 million into that fund.

Unfortunately, this announcement by the Treasurer was never acted upon by the government and the government never took the steps necessary to see that fund established during the past year, so this year, 1988, in the budget the Treasurer presented last month, we have heard now about heritage fund 2, the second commitment of $30 million to a northern Ontario heritage fund. We have seen none of the funds from that first commitment. We obviously have concerns this time about the budget commitment being a hollow promise and about what we are actually going to see in terms of development in the north as a result of this fund.

By far the biggest efficiency in the proposed program from this government is the lack of funds in this fund. Its commitment of $30 million will go a very, very small way towards assisting northern Ontario. If it had been realistic, if it had been sincere in its commitment to northern Ontario, it would have taken the example of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund and looked at the kind of commitment required to establish a real capital fund that can be of assistance to a region.

If one takes just the startup funding of the Alberta heritage fund, one would see that the equivalent, even translating northern Ontario into population terms in comparison with Alberta -- it is certainly smaller -- the Alberta fund was on the order of $1.5 billion to start and that would translate for northern Ontario to a startup fund of about $500 million. That is the kind of commitment that would have come forward from a government that truly did care about the north and that was going to really put in place a program and a capital fund that would reflect the revenues that come out of the north and the needs of northern Ontario.

That $30 million is going to do very little. When one compares that commitment with the kinds of commitments this government has had towards job creation initiatives, major developments, single plants in southern Ontario, one sees how little one actually can buy for $30 million. Really, this government has a double standard for the north in comparison with what it will do in the south.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) offered a single company, Toyota, $35 million in low-interest loans and a $15-million training grant to have it locate an assembly plant in southern Ontario, nearly double the commitment this government is willing to give to all of northern Ontario. That is for a single plant in a single community in southern Ontario.

Less than a month ago, the Premier made another new commitment to a Goodyear tire plant going into eastern Ontario. That commitment was for $36 million, again greater than the total commitment to northern Ontario, for a single project that will provide 900 jobs in eastern Ontario; 900 jobs at a price of $36 million.

1540

I have no argument with that initiative in that community, but how many jobs are we going to be able to buy with a commitment of $30 million in northern Ontario? We have tens of thousands of workers in northern Ontario who are unemployed. This fund will provide the moneys to do a very, very small part of what the needs are in that region.

This government is in a time at which revenues are at a very strong point in terms of the economic health and the fiscal position of the province. This is a time, if there ever was one, when this government could have made a very serious commitment to recognizing the imbalances in the economic health of the north versus the south, transferring part of the economic wealth of the south by returning some of the economic wealth that is generated by the resources that come out of the north back to the north. That could have been done at this tune when we are near the top point of the business cycle. We could have seen a government make a serious commitment on the order of what Alberta did, something on the order of a $500-million fund.

We do not need small amounts coming into the north which potentially will be squandered away rather than going into a solid fund that will be there for years to come and that will invest in the north, provide capital and be reinvested, providing income back into the fund.

At the same time we are hearing the government’s commitment to this heritage fund, we are seeing cutbacks in the government’s funding to programs such as the Northern Ontario Development Corp. and the northern Ontario regional development program in northern Ontario. We need a government that will look to the future of the north, not steal funds from one program to reallocate to a new initiative of a new government while it phases out the initiatives of previous governments.

The member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Brown) last week suggested that the fund may well be used for topping up programs for other ministries. This is a very serious concern of northerners. It is essential that we have the full commitment of all ministries to their responsibilities in northern Ontario. This fund cannot be seen to be a slush fund, a fund to provide extra help for ministries that will not put forward the funds needed in their own areas of responsibility.

I ask the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) to go back to his cabinet, to rethink this proposal and to fight for a fund that really will provide the economic initiatives we need across the north.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I request all honourable members to pay as much attention as they can to the member for Sault Ste. Marie, who is completing his speech with respect to Bill 116.

Mr. Morin-Strom: At this point, I would like to conclude by asking this government to demonstrate its commitment to and its faith in the future of northern Ontario by reconsidering this legislation and acting to institute a real northern Ontario heritage fund.

The Acting Speaker: Would any honourable member wish to comment upon remarks made by the member for Sault Ste. Marie? If not, would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate? The member for Algoma-Manitoulin. Just one moment, please. Has the honourable member already spoken in this debate?

Mr. Brown: No, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Please go ahead, then.

Mr. Brown: I am pleased and proud to join in this important debate on the heritage fund. Last summer, as members will recall, the province was in the midst of an election campaign. As a Liberal candidate, I joined with my colleagues all across the province -- not just in the north but across the whole province -- in advocating, indeed promising, a fund for northern Ontario, a fund that would be comprised of $30 million, a fund that would be administered by northerners, a fund that would assist the north to find northern solutions to northern problems.

That was the promise in the summer of 1987; that was the election plank in the summer of 1987; that is what we said we would do; and that is what we are doing. This is just one more Liberal election promise kept.

The heritage fund is an important component of the government’s thrust to assist the north to diversify, to more fully participate equally with all of Ontario. The heritage fund is just one of a substantial number of programs put in place to help northerners find their own solutions to their own problems. When combined with the myriad of initiatives by numerous ministries, the heritage fund must be seen as an important additional component of the government’s commitment.

The heritage fund is a commitment to northern Ontario of $360 million, $30 million a year every year for the next 12 years. The fund will be operated from a separate bank account apart from the provincial Treasury. This is important because it will give the fund stability. It will allow the directors to use their resources with a view to the long term.

The fund will not make decisions on the basis of an artificial deadline of the provincial fiscal year. If the board decides to fund projects over a number of years, it will have the needed flexibility. If the board needs time to consider priorities, it need not be stampeded into spending by the infamous March 31 deadline just because it might lose the allocation. I suggest this unique feature will allow for an intelligent and coherent long-term development strategy.

The mandate of the fund is broad. The mandate is to provide assistance to single-industry communities experiencing economic disruption from layoffs or shutdowns; to assist with the development of new technology, especially in the resource sector; to help small businesses to get started or to expand their operations; and to support special projects that promote the long-term growth and diversification of the northern economy.

This broad mandate is a definite plus. It will allow the board of northerners who will administer the fund to invest the fund in a way northerners decide, to meet the needs of northerners as defined by northerners. It is a cornerstone of a government policy that believes the problems of the north are best addressed by northerners, a government that believes the best solutions are homemade solutions, a government that believes the north’s problems will not be solved by Queen’s Park solutions. I, unlike the opposition, trust northerners to build northern Ontario.

In listening to the debate on this issue, I have heard numerous recitations of the north’s problems and concerns. I share these concerns. We have an economy in the north that is too tied to the booms and busts of the resource sector. We have a society experiencing a net outflow of population. We have a society that does not have sufficient job opportunities for our youth.

Yet this is not a problem anyone or any group will solve with any one solution. It is a problem to which megasolutions do not apply. It is a problem that will be solved by thousands of solutions. The problem will not be solved by government, any government, but will be solved by the people of the north with the co-operation and assistance of the government.

We in the north are turning the corner. Unemployment, while still a problem, is at its lowest level in many years. Our mining sector is expanding rapidly. The forest products industry will invest nearly $750 million in the next few short years to increase our competitiveness.

The province is moving 1,600 positions in the civil service north to help in our diversification. These moves mean an annual payroll of $48 million and the construction of new buildings totalling $200 million. This relocation program also has the benefit that now civil servants will see the world the way northerners see the world. This will bring the government closer to the people and closer to the concerns and needs of our people.

1550

I know that much needs to be done to develop and diversify the north, but I, like most northerners, know there exist no magic solutions, no wand-waving, no Disneyland solutions. I believe that we in the north are turning the corner. We in the north are being given the tools and assistance by this government to find our own solutions. I therefore would urge all members, especially all northern members, to support this important initiative.

Mr. Pouliot: I was a little distressed, although I do welcome the comments from our good friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin about comments such as, “Unlike members of the opposition, we on this side of the House trust northerners.” I do not think there is any foundation for that; certainly we do not deserve that kind of off-the-cuff comment, with the highest of respect, because no one has a monopoly on caring for others, on having a social conscience when it comes time to articulate the problems that are too well known up north.

I, for one, have mentioned several times in this House that when it comes to the legitimate grievances and the legitimate aspirations of the people of the north, we could indeed come as close as possible to crossing party lines in terms of individual lobbying to our colleagues to ensure that the north could at last become part of the economic mainstream of Ontario.

I would like to remind the member that perhaps he was right last week when he talked about the topping off of the northern heritage fund. Candidly, I am very much in favour of what is being done in terms of the northern heritage fund. Our party will be opposing the fund for one reason and one reason only, not for its rationale, not for its intent or spirit, but solely because we feel it is really not enough of an injection; $30 million is not that much money.

The government could make us change our mind or make us appreciate the fund more by making restitution, namely, of the $30 million that was committed in 1987; $30 million was not spent, and $60 million would go a longer way to helping us solve the problem.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think what is happening here today is a very important event as relates to the will of this government to share the concerns we have about bringing northern Ontario as a full partner into all the good things that happen in this buoyant economy we have.

I think as significant as the bill is, maybe more significant is the individual who is placing the bill, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine). I feel that since I have been here, I have never seen anyone so committed to northern Ontario as this honourable gentleman. I say with the greatest respect that it is somewhat disappointing --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Keep a straight face, Vince.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This is quite a serious conversation. I do not think the member should make jokes. I do from time to time when it is appropriate, but I do not think it is appropriate right now. I think the member should just keep quiet -- I only have two minutes -- and listen for a minute and then yap it up after.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Look who’s talking. You used to sit over here and never shut up.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I accept that.

I think the fact is that the gentleman who is carrying the bill, who has such a deep-rooted feeling about what northern Ontario is about and who is totally committed, is starting off in a direction after the initiatives this government has already taken in that direction to do the kind of things for which northern Ontario has waited for some time, maybe 40 years or so.

I have to say that with the kind of commitment the government has, with the kind of the minister who is putting forward this bill, I am very optimistic that we should get over some of the minor hurdles we talk about as relate to the kind of commitment, because I think the commitment has been made. As we expand on it, in my ministry as well, in the Ministry of Natural Resources, I feel that we are doing things that are going to augur well for the people in northern Ontario.

Mr. Morin-Strom: When we talk about commitment, we have to question what the commitment is when the government puts less than one tenth of one per cent of the budget of the province into northern Ontario. We have got at least eight per cent of the population of the province. The government is putting less than one tenth of one per cent of the budget of the province into this program. That is what the government’s commitment is, that is the commitment this particular member is supporting from this government. I would think if he were fighting for northern Ontario he would be advocating a real fund that would do real things for the people in the north.

This member suggests that this program, this legislation, this heritage fund, is going to be the cornerstone of the Liberal program for northern Ontario. I would suggest in fact that in the long run, when the people of this province and the people of northern Ontario see what this fund is going to buy for them and what it is going to do in terms of economic development, it will not be the cornerstone of the program; it will be the tombstone of the Liberal Party in northern Ontario.

Mr. Harris: I want to make a few comments and suggest in the two minutes available to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin that he may wish to respond and rethink his position. I also want to comment that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) interjected with two things. One, he talked about the commitment of the Minister of Northern Development to the north. I share that. I too think that the Minister of Northern Development is committed to northern Ontario and is fighting for it.

The disgrace is that he is not very good at it. The second disgrace is that his cabinet colleagues do not listen to him and the third disgrace is the result that we have seen in this Legislature and outside this Legislature since he has been there, and what has happened in northern Ontario.

But listen, nobody runs for office in northern Ontario unless they are committed to the north. What we are doing is measuring whether (a) the individual is successful and (b) whether his cabinet colleagues are listening to him or not. In this case they obviously are not.

I wonder if the member for Algoma-Manitoulin is not a little embarrassed by his government’s commitment to northern Ontario. It is OK to say, “Look, I agree with the thrust of the legislation but there is not enough money in it to be meaningful.” It is OK to say, “Look, I agree with this particular legislation,” and take a little poke at the Minister of Natural Resources, who dared to stand up today in this House and say that his ministry was contributing to the people in northern Ontario.

He should be embarrassed. Trappers are now going to take this ministry to court. They are looking at court action over unilateral decisions that have been taken -- and quite frankly they have been taken, I guess, by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) -- but the member and the ministry officials --

The Acting Speaker: Order. As my friend is well aware, his comments are to relate to the comments made by the major speaker.

Mr. Harris: I want to say to the Minister of Natural Resources while we are dealing with this that I am embarrassed with our parks policy. I am embarrassed with the banning on trapping. I am embarrassed with the banning on hunting. Surely in the two minutes available to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, he will want to get up and do that.

Mr. Brown: I think I should remind the members what legislation is in front of us and what it will do and what they would be voting against. Just to summarize the key points of this legislation: it is a long-term commitment by this government to the north funded at $30 million for 12 years. It is $360 million. It will be administered by a board made up of a cross-section of northerners.

My friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) mentioned that I did not think we were all working together. That is true. I did not believe that. I heard some things on his side of the House last week that criticized the fact that there was a board of northerners which was going to make the decision over how that money was spent. I think that it is very appropriate that northerners decide how that money will be spent.

I think it is also important that the corporation will keep its funds in its own account separate from the province. This is unique. I think this is another statement of the government’s commitment to the north, and I think it is unique that the funds will be invested if they are not used, so that the long-term commitment is really there. This is an unusual but great program for northern Ontario people, and I am proud to support it.

1600

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure to rise and be able to participate in this debate this afternoon. I want to assure all members that I will not be long.

I sometimes wonder whether I should be participating in this debate, with respect to some ministries in Ontario, whether or not the entire riding of Parry Sound is in northern Ontario, but I have been assured from time to time by the Minister of Northern Development, the member for Cochrane North, and I must say that I treat his assurances and the sincerity with which they are given with respect.

I too think the member for Cochrane North does have the best interests of northern Ontario and the people in northern Ontario at heart. But I would have to reiterate some of the comments made by my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) in that I do not think the Minister of Northern Development gets the co-operation or the support in cabinet that I think he deserves and that I think the people of northern Ontario deserve.

It is fine to say, I suppose, that we are setting up a northern heritage fund of $360 million. If in fact we were setting up a heritage fund of $360 million today and that money was invested or set aside for the northern heritage fund today, then I think I might take a somewhat different approach than I and my colleagues perhaps will be taking in the Legislature today in the upcoming vote.

I might say at the outset that my position is that I will be supporting the legislation on second reading, although I do think that there are some areas in which it is lacking. I think that the financial aspect is the first and foremost area it is lacking in.

When we think of heritage funds, we think, for example, of the Alberta heritage savings trust fund, where the government of that province literally put hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in a very short space of time into a heritage fund to plan for tomorrow.

The people in northern Ontario need to diversify their economy. Many single-industry communities, as I am sure a lot of members of the Legislature are aware, especially those from northern Ontario know how dependent small communities become on one particular industry or source of revenue. I would think that the first and foremost thing in any northern heritage fund would be to allow for that economic diversification and allow for these communities to stand on their own two feet and be able to contribute over time to the rest of Ontario and to the economy of Ontario.

I really do not think the answer is putting in $30 million a year, a commitment that was made well over a year ago and still not delivered on with respect to the first installment of $30 million. We are already without $30 million for the first year in northern Ontario and now we really are not talking about a $360-million fund. If you take the value of the dollar today and flat-line it at $30 million per year over the next 12 years, I venture to say that by the time you get to the year 2000, that $30 million per year is going to be worth about, roughly, I believe the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) used the figure last week, about $16 million per year in today’s dollars. I would venture to say that is indeed correct.

The government’s commitment to the northern Ontario heritage fund is that it will put half as much money in 12 years from now as it is putting in today. I do not really consider that to be much of a commitment at all in terms of dollars and cents.

With respect to the commitment that had been made by the government and the indication that had been made over a year ago -- I have referred to this on other occasions -- look at the 93rd question in the First Session of the 34th Parliament, which my colleague the member for Nipissing made of the Minister of Northern Development, asking him to indicate the cost incurred in establishing the northern Ontario heritage fund which was announced in the April 1987 throne speech, a list of all projects approved for funding under the fund, the amounts of each project and the administration costs to date of this program. The date of that question was February 9, 1988.

The response, which was a very forthright and honest one from the minister, read as follows: “No identifiable costs have been incurred since the development work for the fund is being earned out within the regular public service. No projects have been approved for funding as yet. No identifiable administrative costs have been incurred.” What he is telling us is that we have not spent a cent on a fund that we promised over a year ago. That was the answer to the question.

The provincial government, I would expect, would probably do more in terms of dollars and cents for northern Ontario than the federal government would do. I think everybody knows -- especially we who spend a lot of time in constituency offices, whatever constituency we represent -- that provincial members of the Legislature are far busier and have far more direct contact on a daily basis with their constituents than do our federal counterparts. I suppose it is because the areas that the provincial government has jurisdiction and responsibility over have touched the individual lives of constituents every day a lot more than areas of the federal government. But we have the federal government contributing $55 million over five years to an economic development program for northern Ontario.

I might point out that the representatives who determine how that fund is spent are from each of the 11 federal electoral districts north of and including Parry Sound and Nipissing. I would like to just slip that in there. I know I do not have to do it for the benefit of the Minister of Northern Development, but I am doing it for the benefit of the Premier and the Minister of Northern Development’s associates in cabinet so they will be well aware of what the federal government thinks the dividing line between north and south Ontario is.

If members go back to last year’s budget and go down the list of election promises that were made by the Liberal Party or people running for that party in the election, there are several very startling figures to date. If some northerners take the announcement of this fund with a grain of salt, to put things in perspective perhaps, some members will understand why that is being received the way it is being received.

The northern development fund, which committed $40 million to be spent over two years, spent $17 million to date. The northern development fund was touted by Liberal candidates as the main means the government would use to increase economic renewal and diversification in the north. Initially promising to spend $20 million per year for these purposes, they are grossly behind in their goal.

Small business development corporations for northern and eastern Ontario, which promised $9 million for the year 1986-87, spent $6.6 million.

Community economic transformation agreements, or CETAs as we commonly refer to them, which promised $10 million for 1986-87, spent $500,000 -- not even 10 per cent of what was promised.

The softwood lumber rebate from the federal government: $30 million promised, absolutely nothing spent. I suppose this is the $30 million we are now going to get back. That is extracted from northerners in northern Ontario to start with. We are going to get the $30 million back now and it is going to be called the northern Ontario heritage fund.

Destinations North, December 1986: $4 million promised; amount allocated and spent, $2.6 million. Northern Ontario heritage fund: amount promised, $30 million; we all know what was spent -- nothing, absolutely nothing. Northern transportation program: amount allocated in 1985-86, $120.2 million, and in 1986-87, $104.5 million; the money we lost to the north under those promises was $15.7 million.

In last year’s budget we heard a lot of allusions to extra money for northern highway and road systems. I believe the figures were $26 million last year and something like $12 million extra money this year. For those members from southern Ontario who are not aware, to build a new highway in northern Ontario, even the Parry Sound part of northern Ontario, costs $2 million per mile, so $26 million will build exactly 13 miles of road. Does anybody out there have any idea or concept as to how big northern Ontario is geographically?

The generous donation with which the Treasurer topped up the road budget with this year will build exactly six miles of highway in northern Ontario. My riding is about 250 miles wide and 100 miles in depth. We will have no problem taking the entire budget for northern Ontario that is granted, the whole $12 million, and we can spend that very close to Parry Sound. What are the other 15 ridings going to do? That will not even begin to satisfy the needs of my constituency.

1610

If you put these things in their proper perspective, you begin to see how very little the commitment of most of the cabinet colleagues of the member for Cochrane North is to northern Ontario. This government has really missed an inroad, in two successive budgets now, to do something for the people of northern Ontario.

Going back to the 1985 Liberal campaign, we were promised tax credits for northern Ontario residents. Absolutely nothing has been done on that promise in three years. So much for campaign promises.

The budget -- either budget -- has done absolutely nothing to lower gasoline prices in northern Ontario, as well as Ontario Hydro rates in northern Ontario, even though a private member’s resolution calling for the lowering of northern Ontario Hydro rates was unanimously passed by all parties of this Legislature, including the Liberal members. How soon they forget. I guess that with 94 seats they can do whatever they want to do. They do not have to deliver on the promises they made. They will just make some more before the next election.

It was very interesting to note with respect to that particular debate and that resolution, that when that resolution came to a voice vote some government members voted against it, but when a recorded vote was asked for these same members either apparently changed their minds or disappeared from the chamber altogether.

I want to put in perspective also the $30 million per year we are talking about in the northern heritage fund. Last year, this government had an amount of surplus revenue, admitted to by the Treasurer, of $1.3 billion. Let’s take the commitment of this government to northern Ontario. We are going to take $30 million, which sounds like a lot of money by itself, $30 million out of a surplus revenue amount of $1.3 billion that the Treasurer had. We are going to place it in its proper context. Do members know what that comes to? Here is the government’s commitment to northern Ontario: that is 0.023 per cent of the government’s revenue surplus given to the northern Ontario heritage fund. That is what this government thinks of northern Ontarians.

I ask the member for Algoma-Manitoulin logo back to his constituents and try to explain to them how this government is so committed to northern Ontario: “You are worth 0.023 per cent of our government’s surplus last year. That is what we think of you in northern Ontario. Here is our commitment to northern Ontario.” I do not think the member is going to get re-elected if he uses that line.

I would be very remiss if I did not get in at least a few comments about whether or not Parry Sound should be in northern Ontario. Perhaps we are not even going to get to participate in this fund. Who knows? As far as the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) is concerned, we do not get to participate in any programs her ministry has. We do not qualify for northern health travel grants. We do not even qualify for highway programs and extra money that are given to northern Ontario because the Ministry of Transportation insists on recognizing Parry Sound district as part of southern Ontario. We do not get to qualify for any extra education money that may come along because the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) refuses to recognize the district of Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario.

We have seen in two successive years, almost exactly a year apart, resolutions of this Legislature that I introduced as the member for Parry Sound pass unanimously, and I mean by each and every single member of the Legislature present for the vote. Every single member of the Legislature present for both of those resolutions a year apart thinks the Parry Sound district should be part of northern Ontario for the purposes of all government ministries.

Yet we still have no action. We have assurances and reassurances from the Minister of Northern Development. As I said at the outset, I have no doubt at all about the sincerity of the Minister of Northern Development and his commitment to get Party Sound into northern Ontario, but I must say I do have some doubt, quite frankly, about the sincerity of the Premier who had indicated to me in estimates over a year ago in February that he would go back and pursue his cabinet colleagues with renewed vigour to see if he could convince them to include Parry Sound in northern Ontario.

If the Premier of Ontario, who appoints every one of his cabinet colleagues to cabinet, does not have the clout to convince them that every one of their ministries should recognize Parry Sound as part of northern Ontario, then I have to seriously question the ability or the amount of clout that the Premier indeed has. There is surely no way, if the Premier walked into a cabinet meeting and said, “This is going to happen,” that there would be any cabinet minister who would not deliver on that commitment.

I think that is all it takes. I think it is just as simple as that. I think the whole issue can be resolved in five minutes. Perhaps they are going to wait for the next provincial election campaign to see if they can hold the issue on the back burner for another four years. It did not work very well in the last two; I do not know why they might think it would work any better in the next one.

On June 25, 1987, the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) -- at that time he was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines -- in response to my private member’s resolution debate said: “It is actually up to the cabinet. I would like to assure the member for Parry Sound that this has the highest priority before cabinet right now.”

The date again was June 25, 1987.

Mr. Harris: Who said that?

Mr. Eves: The member for Timiskaming. He was then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

“I would like to assure the member for Parry Sound that this has the highest priority before cabinet right now, because of the Premier’s interest in the topic.

“As the member will remember, it was the member for Parry Sound who brought this up in estimates. We are giving it active consideration.”

That is so typical of this government in its response to a lot of things. It reviews things. It studies things. It has committees to review the review this committee has already reviewed, and it puts things on the back burner.

They talk about their commissions and royal investigations into different matters that any government, I suppose, uses from time to time as a delaying tactic to not deal with an issue it does not want to deal with. I can tell members that this government in about three short years, on a per matter basis, probably far supersedes anything that has ever been done by any provincial or federal government in the history of Canada.

Members should look at all the reviews the Ministry of Health has going on right now, for example. It is absolutely ludicrous. We are wasting millions of dollars of the taxpayers money to review things three, four and five times because we have individuals or a government over there that does not have enough commitment or enough intestinal fortitude to stand up and actually do something. It should make a decision. It should make an educated decision, if it can, but let’s do something to try to alleviate the problems. Here, we are talking about the problems of northern Ontario.

As I said at the outset, I am convinced of the minister’s sincerity with respect to the problem, but I really have to question the support he is getting from his cabinet colleagues and the Premier. If he were to rise in the House this afternoon and say that he was initially, today, putting $360 million into the fund, that might be a heritage fund worth talking about. That might be a heritage fund that actually would have some impact on the economy and the lives of people who live in northern Ontario.

But to flat-line $30 million a year that was promised over 13 months ago, not a dime of which has yet been delivered, when we all know that by the year 2000, $30 million is going to be worth only $15 million or $16 million a year, I do not think is much of a commitment.

I am going to support the fund. I certainly do not support the manner in which it has been introduced, I do not support the delay that has taken place in implementing it and I do not support the amount of financial commitment this government is making to northern Ontario.

Mr. Harris: I would like to ask the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) a couple of questions.

He mentioned in his remarks that the Premier said a year ago -- I cannot quote; I do not remember the exact words, so let me paraphrase -- the Premier said and committed that he would do what he could to convince his cabinet colleagues. The Premier said that.

I guess I would ask the member for Parry Sound, given that this is what the Premier said over a year ago and given that nothing has happened, does the member for Parry Sound think the Premier was telling the truth when he said that was what he was going to do? I would ask the member for Party Sound, in view of all the evidence before us, does he think the Premier actually did what he said he was going to do, or, as the evidence would suggest, that the Premier said one thing a year ago and then he did not do it?

1620

There are only two choices. I would ask the member for Parry Sound if he thinks, one, did the Premier tell the truth, or two, after he said that publicly, he really did not plan to do it at all and he did not do it, or did the Premier say one thing publicly and then privately change his mind and not do it?

Since the member for Timiskaming said it had the highest priority before cabinet -- he said that on the record -- in view of the fact that cabinet did nothing about it, I wonder if the member for Parry Sound would think the member for Timiskaming was telling the truth. Does he in fact think it had the highest priority before cabinet, in view of the fact he made those statements and in view of the fact nothing has happened, or does the member for Parry Sound think that perhaps they have been playing fast and loose with the truth over there in their comments about Parry Sound coming into northern Ontario?

Mr. Eves: Briefly, in response to the member for --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Ernie, go and sit on his lap while you answer the question.

Mr. Harris: Just answer the question; yes or no.

Mr. Eves: I think, with respect to the statements both the Premier and the member for Timiskaming made at the time, that I assumed they were very genuine, honest and truthful statements. With respect to the results we have seen to date, they would seem to indicate that was not necessarily the case, but I would not go so far ever as to accuse anybody of not being sincere or honest or forthright in his statements. I just wish the proof of the pudding was there and the results were here and the commitment was delivered upon. I look forward to the day when it is.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to participate in the debate? If not, the minister may wish to make some final comment.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: J’aimerais aujourd’hui débuter mon allocution en répondant à certaines questions, soulevées par mes collègues, concernant le Fonds patrimonial du Nord de l’Ontario. Mais, avant tout, je veux réitérer, pour le bénéfice des membres, les points majeurs qui constituent ce fonds.

Mon gouvernement a octroyé la somme de 30 millions de dollars par année pour une période de douze ans. Aucun gouvernement antérieur, en Ontario, n’avait consacré une telle somme d’argent au développement à long terme du Nord de l’Ontario, mais plus particulièrement, par les gens du Nord de l’Ontario.

Au cours du présent débat, j’ai entendu à maintes reprises mes collègues dire que l’introduction de ce projet de loi représentait une triste journée pour les gens du Nord de l’Ontario parce que, tout simplement, 30 millions de dollars ne sont pas assez.

Je me dois aujourd’hui, ainsi qu’aux gens du Nord de l’Ontario, de clarifier cette remarque. Depuis l’annonce de ce projet, j’ai voyagé dans l’ensemble du Nord, et je peux vous assurer, Monsieur le Président, que les gens du Nord ont accueilli très positivement cette initiative de mon gouvernement. C’est avec beaucoup d’orgueil que je reflète les positions de mes contribuables dans cette Chambre et je trouve surprenant qu’au sein de cette même Chambre, certains des élus soient incapables d’en faire de même.

Au cours de mes voyages, j’ai constaté que les gens du Nord de l’Ontario avaient immédiatement compris qu’il s’agissait de nouveaux argents et que ce fonds était un atout précieux aux nombreux programmes déjà en place pour le Nord de l’Ontario.

I would like to begin my closing remarks by first addressing some of the questions raised with respect to the northern Ontario heritage fund. Let me reiterate the main points of the northern Ontario heritage fund.

First, the government has committed $30 million a year over 12 years to the fund. No previous government in Ontario has made this kind of commitment to the long-term development of northern Ontario by northerners. In the course of this debate, I have heard my colleagues say many times that the introduction of this bill represents a sad day for the people of northern Ontario because the commitment of $360 million is just not enough. I would like to set the record straight.

Since the fund was announced, I have been travelling through northern Ontario and I can assure members that the response I have been getting to the northern Ontario heritage fund is more than positive. I take great pride in representing the views of my constituents. It is indeed surprising when the elected representatives in this House are less able to understand the implications of the northern Ontario heritage fund than their constituents.

In my travels, I have seen at first hand that the people of northern Ontario are able to understand that this fund will not be used as a top-up fund, that this fund is clearly new money and that this fund is a valuable addition to the many programs already in place in northern Ontario.

The fund is going to be managed by northerners for northerners. This is a first and it reflects what northerners have been seeking from Queen’s Park for years. With such a large commitment of public funds, it is in the interests of public accountability that the bill contain provisions to safeguard expenditures. In appropriate circumstances, cabinet could impose conditions on the use of the fund. I am sure members will agree that this is a wise measure and proves that the government is a responsible one.

The bill does not impose constraints on the fund’s purpose as determined by the board of directors. As we made clear from the start, the whole purpose in creating a separate board to administer the fund is to give northerners autonomy over its disbursement. I can understand the confusion some members in opposition may feel, so let me explain in simple terms what this means.

The fund will be administered by northerners, as opposed to civil servants. This is why the fund will exist in a separate corporation and why the fund money will be kept in its own bank account separate from the province’s consolidated revenue fund.

We have proposed broad guidelines for the fund, as I indicated when I introduced the legislation on April 21. These guidelines reflect consultations we have had with northerners through the northern development councils and at the major economic development conferences in Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay. It will be the board’s task to elaborate on these guidelines and decide specific uses for the fund.

At this point, I want to take a moment to address an apparent concern raised by the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) over the government’s expenditure in his riding. He said we assigned $30 million for Toyota, but I am going to show him a few figures of what was spent in his own riding that are more than what was given to Toyota.

He will be interested to know that in the past two years this government has made a commitment to public- and private-sector projects in Sault Ste. Marie totalling more than $125 million. These include the construction of two new buildings to house the Ontario Lottery Corp. and the Ministry of Natural Resources, $39 million; funding to the Algoma tour train -- I guess he forgot that -- $7 million; a loan guarantee for St. Marys Paper, $50 million; water and sewer assistance, $1.3 million; a northern development fund grant to Searchmont ski hill, $5 million; and a community economic transformation agreement grant of $5 million.

I am sure during his election he used these to be re-elected. I am sure of that because I saw some advertising in the Sault. I guess people thought at the end that he had done all this, but he forgot to tell them that these were our programs too, because we put those in place during the last two years. I wonder where the member for Sault Ste. Marie has been for the last two years. Has he not had a chance to visit with the constituents and witness for himself the considerable advancement this government has made in his riding?

The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) has raised a tremendous fuss regarding the ministry budget increases in the administrative area. Let me explain those increases.

1630

To better serve the needs of our client group, the ministry is moving its head office to Sudbury. It is now in the process of designing and constructing a building and preparing staff for the move through counselling, French-language training and an orientation visit to Sudbury. That comes to $3.8 million.

For many years the ministry relied on other ministries for most of its corporate services support. To facilitate the move to Sudbury, the ministry has created its own corporate services division, including a human resources branch, a legal services branch, French-language services, audit and other services, which come to $3.1 million.

To better co-ordinate the ministry’s delivery of services to northerners in numerous towns and cities all across the north, the ministry is installing a new computer network, at $1.6 million.

The member for Cochrane South admitted to some difficulty in tracking the ministry’s expenditures to the revised vote and item structure in our estimates. Let me simplify things for him by pointing out that the ministry budget increased from 1985-86 to 1988-89 for northern development, northern transportation and mines, from $186.8 million to $289.9 million, a 56.6 per cent increase. These figures do not include the increase of the ministry’s administrative budget.

It strikes me as amazing that some members, once they have crossed the floor, seem to suffer from a severe case of selective memory. I want to repeat that to the member for Parry Sound. I was there when Mr. Bernier came, an hour before the announcement of the election in 1977, promising that the north would have a new ministry. But it is not me who forgot Parry Sound, not the Liberal Party and not the Minister of Northern Development at this time; it is Bill Davis and Bernier who forgot Parry Sound.

Since then, they had eight years to recover and they did not do it. Now the member comes here and tells us that we should do this and that. We are going to do it in time and on our own agenda, not his agenda. It is going to be done.

Mr. Eves: In eight years 10 ministries put us in northern Ontario; what have you done in three?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am telling the member for Parry Sound that if he is in trouble, it is not my fault. He should go back to Mr. Bernier and Mr. Davis. Why did they not put Parry Sound in the north at that time in 1977? He should go ask that question of them.

I will not spend more time in commenting on what the Conservatives are saying, because I am not scared about what we are doing in the north. I came prepared. Any achievement they did -- they could not even move two jobs, not two jobs, from this city to the north. They tried and they failed in cabinet. We have moved at least 1,600 to prove to them that we are serious.

I will not spend much time in commenting on the remarks of the member for Sudbury East because I truly sympathize with her. Given her inexperience, one can more easily forgive her tendency to isolate programs and therefore be unable to recognize the fact that the fund -- and again I emphasize this for the benefit of those who cannot seem to understand -- is in addition to the already significant programs in place for the economic development of the north.

At the beginning of my statement I said that I wanted to set the record straight in terms of the sad days which we sometimes witness in the House. Before I comment on the northern Ontario regional development program, I would like to quote my colleague the member for Nipissing:

“I am prepared to stand in this House in front of the people of Nipissing and say there are companies, folks, in my riding that have got grants that they do not need. They do not particularly want them. It is not the right word, but they would have expanded without them.”

It is my belief that the recipients of Nordev grants are legitimate in their need for assistance and I would like to inform my colleague that I have asked for a sunset review of the Nordev program and will be more than happy to report to this House, specifically with regard to the statement of the member for Nipissing.

Some of the members have commented on the fact that the Nordev program will be placed under the northern heritage fund for the board to continue, change or cancel as it sees fit. If they see fit, this fund will be run by them, not by -- now it is being administered by a civil servant, but if they accept the principle of that fund, it could be managed by them.

As I stated on April 21, the goals of the Nordev program closely reflect one of the major aims of the northern Ontario heritage fund: to provide incentive funding to create jobs and start or expand small businesses in the north. For that reason, we consider it entirely appropriate that the board will manage the fund and be given an opportunity to conduct an independent review of the northern Ontario regional development program to determine whether it wants to continue the program, revise it or to do away with it altogether.

This government has consulted extensively with northerners through the Rosehart report. Out of the Rosehart report, we have already implemented 54 of their recommendations, 13 are being worked on and there are probably only going to be four that we will not implement.

There have been cabinet meetings in the north and many personal meetings I and my cabinet colleagues have had with northerners from all walks of life in virtually every community in the region. I can tell members that the Premier himself, if I recall it right, must have gone north 30 times in three years. Last weekend, when we visited the northwest, I think it was 35 times that ministers had visited the northwest since election time. Not only in the northwest; I am sure we did the same thing in the northeast if I do not forget the count.

Over and over again, we have heard the same desire expressed, the desire to see funds generated by the north returned to the north in an independent fund that gives northerners the resources they need to take more control of their own economic destiny. We have listened to northerners, heard what they want and we have delivered. I think all northerners will be disappointed if any member is so out of touch with his constituents as to not support this direct initiative.

Je suis fier de ce projet de loi puisqu’il est le résultat d’une consultation intensive auprès des gens du Nord de l’Ontario. Ce sera une bien triste journée en effet dans cette Chambre si mes collègues de l’opposition ne reconnaissent pas le bien fondé de cette démarche et décident de ne pas appuyer le gouvernement dans cette initiative. Merci.

1652

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Fontaine’s motion for second reading of Bill 116, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Ballinger, Bossy, Bradley, Brandt, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carrothers, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Eves, Faubert, Fleet, Fontaine, Furlong, Grandmaître;

Harris, Hart, Henderson, Hošek, Johnson, J. M., Kanter, Kerrio, Kozyra, McCague, McClelland, McGuigan, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Nicholas, Nixon, R. F., Oddie Munro, Offer, Patten, Phillips, G., Pollock, Poole, Pope, Reycraft, Roberts, Runciman, Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Ward, Wilson, Wong, Wrye.

Nays

Breaugh, Bryden, Cooke, D. S., Farnan, Grier, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Martel, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Wildman.

Ayes 63; nays 14.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND ACT / LOI SUR LE FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO

Consideration of Bill 116, An Act respecting the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund.

Étude du projet de loi 116, Loi concernant le Fonds patrimonial du Nord de l’Ontario.

The Deputy Chairman: Any comments, questions or amendments and, if to sections, would you please indicate which sections?

Mr. Pouliot: Section 3.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other amendments, comments or questions and any other sections to be amended?

Mr. Pope: Sections 5, 6 and 7.

The Deputy Chairman: I have sections 3, 5, 6 and 7.

Are there any other sections upon which there are comments, questions or amendments?

We will commence at the beginning of the bill with respect to sections 1 and 2. Shall sections 1 and 2 stand as part of the bill?

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Les articles 1 et 2 sont adoptés.

Section/article 3:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Pouliot moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(4) Every director, except for the minister, shall be a resident of the territorial district of Algoma, Cochrane, Kenora, Manitoulin, Nipissing, Parry Sound, Rainy River, Sudbury, Thunder Bay or Timiskaming.

“(5) The composition of the board shall reflect the regional, linguistic and gender makeup of the territorial districts referred to in subsection (4).

“(6) The board shall be composed of representatives from labour, native groups, women’s organizations and small business.”

La vice-présidente: M. Pouliot propose que l’article 3 du projet de loi soit modifié par l’addition des paragraphes suivants:

« (4) À l’exception du ministre, les administrateurs sont des résidents des districts territoriaux d’Algoma, de Cochrane, de Kenora, de Manitoulin, de Nipissing, de Parry Sound, de Rainy River, de Sudbury, de Thunder Bay ou de Timiskaming.

« (5) La composition du conseil d’administration reflète le caractère régional, linguistique et générique de la population des districts territoriaux mentionnés au paragraphe (4).

« (6) Le conseil d’administration se compose de représentants des travailleurs, des autochtones, des organisations de femmes et des petites entreprises. »

1700

Mr. Pouliot: The first amendment enshrines in the legislation the principle that the fund should be controlled by northerners, and we feel that is essential to the vision of the fund. The second amendment attempts to put plainly ordinary people in charge of the fund, no more, no less. It is a very simple rationale for what are actually straightforward, simple amendments that we put forth.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: We will be voting against those three. It was in my statement that all regions in the north will be represented. Again, what is a resident of the north? It is hard to define. If a woman is working in Toronto for one day a week and goes back to the north, is she a resident of the north? I would rather leave it to the board of directors of this to define the terms of reference when they are in place.

In my statement I said that all groups would be represented: labour, native groups, women’s organizations and small business. This is in my statement. I made at least 10 speeches in the north on this and I will go along with this, but not in the bill. I think it should be on the outside, and the same thing with the board. “The board shall reflect the regional, linguistic and gender makeup.” It is already in my statement, so I would rather wait until the board is in place to put in the rest. I will be voting against those three amendments.

Mr. Pope: I do not understand the reaction of the minister to this. I think it reflected his opening statement on this bill. I understand, perhaps, the need for some flexibility, and I presume that is what the minister is looking at in terms of appointments. But I think as principles embroidered in this legislation, all we are saying is that the board itself shall be composed of residents of northern Ontario, as we understand it to be, and shall be reflective of the makeup. There are no absolute numbers.

It says it will be a balanced, representative board composed of people living in northern Ontario. It is what the minister said in his opening statement. I do not see what is wrong with putting into law what he says. Therefore, our party will support the amendment of the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Harris: I am really surprised at the minister as well, and I want to particularly focus in on subsection 3(4) that is being proposed to be added. Subsection 5 says, “The composition of the board shall reflect the regional, linguistic and gender makeup of the territorial districts referred to in subsection (4).”

I understand 5. I do not see why the minister does not support it since he says that is what is there. But he may be able to argue that subsection 5 may cause him some problems in getting the best people on the board. For example, if there is a board of 20, he has already identified 10 very capable women and he wants to put two more women on, somebody may be able to point to this and say he is going to have to appoint more men. I understand the minister’s wanting that flexibility in some of those. Given that the numbers are so loose, I think the minister could live within that.

It is the same with subsection 6. I understand the minister’s not wanting to get into a head count, if you like. Perhaps there would be one or two native members on the board and he would want to appoint a third who would be an excellent candidate for the board. He might be able to argue: “No, I cannot do that because the native population of the north does not justify three. I will have to stick with two.” So I could understand if the minister stood in his place and started to make those arguments instead of just saying he is opposed, off the snuff.

We are here, we hope, in intelligent debate to try to look at the resolutions and the amendments that are being put forward. I have not heard those arguments from the minister. Perhaps having put the words in his mouth, he may take those upon himself. Were he to make those in a very strong and forceful way about 5 and 6, I could understand a ministerial concern. I tell him that on balance I too, like the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), will be supporting all the amendments in spite of some of the arguments I have put forward that a minister may have wanted to make.

But subsection 4 just says the board members will be from the north. That does not put any restriction on the government at all as to gender, linguistics or region. All it says is that you cannot appoint somebody from southern Ontario. If the minister is not prepared to accept subsection 4, then he really does not believe the things he has been espousing about northern Ontario and about who is going to run this fund. If he is serious about it, I think he should seriously take another look at subsection 4, as has been moved by my colleague.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not understand why the member is getting so exercised. I think this minister has shown great responsibility in putting forward the bill. I think what we are looking for here is the best people to sit on that council. If a northern person who has been --

Mr. Harris: Not from southern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Would the member just listen for a minute? I listened to him.

The fact of the matter is that if you have a person who is truly interested in northern Ontario, who happens to have moved to the south and who would be a very valuable person on that board and is considered a northerner, I cannot see how you would leave him off the board if he was going to be the kind of person that would be helpful.

I think this minister is very capable of putting true representation from northern Ontario on the board, which is what he is telling the members he is going to do, and I trust him in his judgement.

Mr. Harris: Now the truth is coming out. Sure, if somebody had a cottage up there, if somebody lived in downtown Toronto but had a cottage. Now we get the thinking -- because it is exactly your silly kind of thinking that is going to cause the problem. Sure, if somebody has a cottage up around Rabbit Lake and lives in downtown Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: When the member stood in his place to make his arguments, I listened intently. It is a very serious matter. I wish he would do the same.

Mr. Harris: They were stupid comments. When people are stupid, then you get up and comment.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, not at all. I make the comment again: If a northern Ontarian happens to have moved down here somehow and still is doing business as it relates to northern Ontario, the member would not allow him to sit on this board. I think that is wrong.

Mr. Harris: I don’t.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I know the member does not or he would not have said it, I hope.

Mr. Pouliot: We have quite a few people; we up north are one tenth of the population in this province of 9.1 million or 9.15 million people.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: And others coming from there.

Mr. Pouliot: No, one second, give me a break.

With the highest respect to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), I doubt very much that he has read those simple words if he can stand there and honestly feel that the bill is jeopardized, is weakened, is changed in any way by inserting subsection 3(4). It is a normal request, a reasonable request.

I am sure that if the member were standing here now, he would make a much more forceful argument, better I am sure than I will ever be able to do, for the need not to sanctify but to give added credibility -- it needs it -- by saying that normally the directors will be people from northern Ontario --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: From.

Mr. Pouliot: -- living in northern Ontario.

Interjection.

Mr. Pouliot: OK, come on.

Je peux faire ça en français, ce sera plus facile pour le ministre du Développement du Nord (M. Fontaine).

Interjection.

M. Pouliot: Je peux le faire en français ou en espagnol, vous savez, ce sera plus facile pour nous tous.

To have the northern Ontario heritage fund administered by northern people -- I would rather be in this position than in the minister’s saying “No, we won’t give you that guarantee.” If the same proposal had come this afternoon -- he cannot say this, but I can -- from one of his distinguished colleagues, the minister would have been overtaken by spontaneous acquiescence.

We know the minister is committed. Common sense should dictate -- go to the press if you do not believe me -- that the very nature of subsection 3(4) does only one thing. It is a very mild amendment.

1710

With all the sincerity I can command, I say that if by virtue or by reason of the way the game is played -- I should not call it a game -- I cannot even move this because I am “on the other or wrong side of the House,” what the heck am I doing here?

I have several other amendments. They do not have a chance of passing. They do not have a chance in hell. I said, “Why, don’t you do this?” you know, really, believe me one more time.

Why are you doing this to me, to the people of the north? We are asking that we be represented by our own, and we cannot even get the minister to swallow that. Give me a break. God, oh God.

Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Madam Chairman: I am sure no member of the Legislature would object to the minister moving down to the front row and having his adviser come and sit so that he can perhaps hear the debate more easily.

The Deputy Chairman: Do I have the unanimous consent of the House to allow that to occur? Agreed?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: I would request that we wait until the movement is completed.

Do I have the unanimous consent of the House for the minister to occupy the Deputy Premier’s desk as well?

Mr. Reville: Temporarily.

The Deputy Chairman: Temporarily. Thank you.

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Just to clarify a point, because I think there might be a little misunderstanding, I am saying in this particular amendment that if we are dealing with where people live, I just want to draw something to your attention. You could have a northern Ontarian who is very, very interested in this kind of involvement, living in southern Ontario, who would not qualify to sit on that board. You could have a southern Ontarian who moves into the north who is there for a very short period of time and who qualifies.

All I am suggesting is that we reach the people who are northerners, wherever they might be, and have northern interests at heart. Now how the member can turn that around, I do not understand.

Mr. Pope: I have to voice my disagreement with the Minister of Natural Resources. I see no more perfect example of the kinds of concerns that the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) is raising than what the minister did to the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) on the parks policy last week.

Mr. Reycraft: The member for Lake Nipigon has implied -- perhaps stated -- in his remarks that the minister is not firm in his commitment that the northern development fund will be administered by northerners. That is not the case. The minister has said repeatedly that fund will be administered by northerners, by people from northern Ontario.

Surely the member for Lake Nipigon and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) understand that the problem in legislation is one of definition. Certainly someone who lives in the south for only a small number of days per year should not be considered an inappropriate individual to be appointed to this board.

The member for Nipissing lives here in Metropolitan Toronto for four days a week, I believe, as does the member for Lake Nipigon. For the member for Cochrane South it has been a few days less for the last several months, but previous to that it was four days a week.

I am sure they understand. They would claim that any one of those three individuals would make a fine candidate for this board of directors, because all of them, in their hearts, feel very sincerely for the needs of the people of northern Ontario. They would not want themselves to be disqualified as candidates for that board of directors, I am sure. But they would complain bitterly if someone from southern Ontario who spent only a few days per year in the north was deemed to be qualified for this board.

The problem, I repeat, is one of definition. The minister’s commitment has been stated again and again. He has been firm. He wants and intends the northern development fund to be administered by northerners.

Mr. Pope: After hearing the words of the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), no wonder the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Brown) is embarrassed in his seat right now.

I want to say that the member for Middlesex ought not to play those kinds of games with the Legislature. If he wants to put in a definition of “resident” the same as the definition of “resident” under the Land Transfer Tax Act of Ontario, or if he wants to define “ordinarily resident” in accordance with the terms of the Income Tax Act of Canada, he can be my guest and make that amendment. He knows as well as I do that the member for Lake Nipigon is talking about people who are ordinarily resident in northern Ontario in every sense of the word as is generally understood in the laws of Canada and this province. So let’s not play games with that kind of wording.

Mr. Harris: Very briefly to the Minister of Natural Resources and the chief government whip. I think they may want to reconsider their positions, because I think the minister has some sympathy for subsection 3(4). I understand and I pointed out some of the difficulties he may have with subsections 3(5) and 3(6), but subsection 3(4) is really putting into the act what in fact the minister wants.

The arguments by the member for Middlesex about definition: We do not have a difficulty with allowing the minister to interpret the definition in any logical way he wishes to interpret being a resident of northern Ontario. The Minister of Natural Resources said we would eliminate somebody who has moved from northern Ontario to southern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That’s right, and vice versa.

Mr. Harris: No, we do not eliminate anybody who has moved from southern Ontario to the north.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Why would you have him on the board?

Mr. Harris: I would not. Maybe the minister would, but our amendment does not say we have to put him on the board.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Support the amendment then.

Mr. Harris: Do not be so stupid, and listen.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: You should talk.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I would advise that all honourable members --

Mr. Harris: Do not be so stupid, and listen. The minister is saying that the reason he is opposed to this is that he does not want a minister to appoint somebody who moves from southern Ontario to northern Ontario for three days.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I didn’t say that.

Mr. Harris: If there is a minister in the government who will do something that stupid -- well. Do not be ridiculous. What we are talking about here --

The Deputy Chairman: Order. A point of order from the member from Middlesex.

Mr. Reycraft: Madam Chairman, on a point of order: Under the standing orders, when the House is in committee of the whole, speakers are to address the chair. The member for Nipissing is very clearly not doing that.

Mr. Harris: Madam Chairman, I apologize through you to the stupid Minister of Natural Resources.

The Deputy Chairman: I would remind all members to be very cautious with their language. As you all know, under the standing orders, we are not to use language that is liable to incite the House. I would request that you be a little more judicious in your use of language.

Mr. Harris: Nothing in the amendment has to do with whether somebody just moves up there. If this amendment does not go through, and some minister wants to appoint somebody who just moved up there, they can do it. If this amendment goes through, they can do it. Nothing has changed. So to confuse the issue with what I think is a silly argument -- I retract “silly member.” It was a silly argument. I do not know what kind of member puts forth a silly argument, but I will no longer call him silly. The argument is silly.

Now what we are dealing with is his concern that somebody originally from northern Ontario, who moves to the south, will be excluded from the board. The amendment does do that, and I think that is good. I think there are thousands of talented people in northern Ontario to choose from for this board. If we choose to eliminate somebody who deserted the north and moved to the south, I do not think that is bad.

We want people who live in the north, who live there now, not people who said, “I do not want to stay in the north. I want to come to southern Ontario,” and not people who have never lived in northern Ontario. We want people on this board who, truly indeed, live and reflect northern Ontario today. The minister wants that. I say with respect, I think the minister -- I noticed him consulting -- is considering, “Maybe I should take subsection 3(4). It is indeed what I want.” I would encourage the minister to once again ignore his southern colleagues, as I know he has had to do on a number of occasions, and to consider seriously taking the amendment to subsection 3(4).

1720

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First of all, I would like to say to the member for Nipissing that there are a few words that he said around here that I did not like. OK, he retracted those words, but it is still in the minds of the people who are living outside the north. I want to remind the member for Nipissing that, as a former mayor of the town of Hearst and as a businessman, when you look at what the people of the south have done -- I mean it is OK to talk about this and this. We saw that in the whole north because there was always a fight between two or three ministers, between the northwest and the northeast, and we all suffered.

One thing I tried to do when I came here and I was alone as a minister -- today there are seven members from northern Ontario in the caucus and we have three in the cabinet -- I tried to talk about only one Ontario. But the north is there as an entity, not to separate it. I did not like the way he talked about the southerners in office. That I do not like. If we did that all the time through our lives, maybe northern Ontario would be nothing. Even in his own cabinet, I am sure at times he thought that maybe those guys should listen more to us. But still, I am sure the premiers at that time, Mr. Davis, Mr. Robarts and Mr. Frost, looked at the north too, and they were from southern Ontario.

Maybe I will make some changes. I will be drafting it. If they want to accept that, OK. But if they do not, we will vote on it later.

I would like to amend this motion by striking out subsections 4 and 5 and the words “as” --

The Deputy Chairman: No. You have to deal with this amendment first. Then, if you wish to put an amendment afterwards, you may do so.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: OK.

Mr. Pouliot: The minister will put his own amendment, is that what he is saying?

Deputy Chairman: That is right. It is my understanding -- and may I be very clear, Mr. Minister, what you are intending to do -- you are intending to put an amendment to section 3 yourself.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: It is my ruling that we have to deal with the amendment to section 3 that was brought forth by the member for Lake Nipigon first and then the other amendment may be put at that time, before we leave section 3.

Mr. Harris: It might save a lot of time and debate if the minister could read the amendment he is proposing to put into the record as part of the debate on this. I think he can do that.

The Deputy Chairman: That would be satisfactory.

Mr. Harris: Then we would know what, in fact, he is proposing and it might help us.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Minister, then as part of the debate with respect to the proposed amendment to section 3, do you wish to make a further statement?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: No. I will make sure my amendment fits, OK? I amend this motion by striking out subsections 4 and 5 and the words “as” and “of” in the second line of subsection 4, replacing them in the second line with “ordinarily” and “in” respectively. It is OK?

The Deputy Chairman: I will require to have that amendment in writing before I can put it.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: OK.

The Deputy Chairman: While the copy is being made, the member for Simcoe West, do you wish to comment upon clause 3? We are speaking to the amendment put forward by the member for Lake Nipigon at this time.

Mr. McCague: There has been some discussion this afternoon about whether or not if you move away from the north you should be qualified to still sit on the board. I just want to point out, particularly to the government members, an amendment which the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) is asking us to approve in Bill 106.

In the explanatory note it says, “Sections 37 and 38 of the Municipal Act are amended to clarify that a person must hold the qualifications for office to be elected and must continue to hold the qualifications during the term of office.”

Simply said, if you are on a council of a municipality and you move away, you lose your position.

Now why would we want to be different in the case of this board? Why would we not apply the same kind of rules? If somebody moved away, as my colleague from Lake Nipigon or from Nipissing has said, why would the same rule not apply? If somebody moves away, he moves away from the job he had, that great-paying job, or maybe it is a no-pay job that the minister is proposing.

Why do they not be consistent? If that is what they have proposed there, why do they not agree then that if a person moves away from the north, he is not on the board any longer?

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other member wish to comment? If not, are we ready for the question with respect to the amendment?

Mr. Harris: I am sorry, Madam Chairman, I think the minister is now proposing an amendment to the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: OK, fine. Is that correct? One moment, please. Is the minister now proposing an amendment to the amendment that was put forward by the member for Lake Nipigon?

Hon. Mr Fontaine: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: May I hear that, if the minister wishes? I will have to have it in writing as well.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I amend this motion by striking subsections 5 and 6 -- and the words “a” and “of” in the second line of subsection 4 and replacing them with “ordinarily” and “in,” respectively.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the minister have that in writing? May I have that in writing, please?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: And I strike 5 and 6.

The Deputy Chairman: The minister moves an amendment to the motion put forward by the member for Lake Nipigon by striking out subsections 5 and 6 and the words “a” and “of” in the second line of subsection 4 and replacing them in the second line with “ordinarily” and “in,” respectively.

Mr. Pope: As I understand it now, the net effect of this is that section 3 is amended by in fact adding subsection 4, which will read: “Every director, except for the minister, shall be ordinarily resident in the territorial district of Algoma, Cochrane, Kenora, Manitoulin, Nipissing, Parry Sound, Rainy River, Sudbury, Thunder Bay or Timiskaming.

The Deputy Chairman: That is my understanding of the amendment as well.

Mr. Pope: Then that would complete section 3 of the bill, and if the member for Lake Nipigon is accepting that amendment to his amendment and that is the net effect of where we are, we are prepared to abide by the wishes of the House.

Mr. Pouliot: I am delighted that the minister has chosen to enshrine the thrust of our wisdom, if you wish, or of our amendment, and we will be supporting his amendment.

Mr. Harris: We will support the amendment, and as I said, I pointed out I could understand the concern of a minister, or certainly, the civil servants advising him with subsections 3(5) and (6) as maybe tying things down too tight, but I do think the amendment is in the spirit of what we were talking about with section 4. I congratulate the minister on being willing to listen to the point that was put forward and for ignoring the comments of the Minister of Natural Resources.

1730

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think the member for Nipissing would, if he were a gentleman, make an apology for the kind of language he used. While I do not expect that, I would not resort to that kind of description of the honourable gentleman myself.

Having said that, I have no difficulty at all when the minister who is putting the bill is willing to listen to the arguments and accept that amendment. It does not take away from the position I was in to support this minister, for whom I have such great respect. If the member would like to send me the apology in writing, it would be accepted.

Mr. Harris: I think I indicated to you, Madam Chairman, that I would not in the future refer to the minister as silly; only the argument. I apologize if I called him silly or stupid. The argument was silly and stupid, but I do want to withdraw the comment with respect to the individual and I apologize.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I think I have to make the same amendments in French.

The Deputy Chairman: If it is satisfactory, do I have the agreement of the House that legislative counsel may put it in French so that it has the appropriate wording?

Agreed to.

Adopté.

The Deputy Chairman: Then we may proceed. Mr. Pouliot has moved an amendment to section 3 of the bill, which has been amended by the minister, and the motion for that amendment reads -- do I dispense with respect to that?

Agreed to.

Adopté.

The Deputy Chairman: Then we will have a vote, first, upon the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

The Deputy Chairman: We will now vote on the amendment put forward by the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot), as amended by the amendment put forward by the minister. Just for clearance’s sake, would you like me to read that as it now stands? Dispense?

Agreed to.

Adopté.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

The Deputy Chairman: May we now go to section 3 as amended by the vote that we have just put? I remind all members that there are now four clauses to section 3. Do you dispense with me reading the clause as it now stands?

Agreed to.

Adopté.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 3, as amended, carry?

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

L’article 3, modifié, est adopté.

Section 4 agreed to.

L’article 4 est adopté.

Section/article 5:

Mr. Pope: I have an amendment to section 5 that I wish to read into the record. I will do so and then give an explanation.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Pope moves that section 5 of the said act be amended by deleting the word “and” at the end of the second line of clause (b) and relettering clause (c) of section 5 to read “f” and by adding the following:

“(c) to provide and guarantee to every resident of northern Ontario equality of opportunity for education, training, skills development and social and economic enhancement and improvement;

“(d) to create more and more highly skilled and diversified employment opportunities for residents of northern Ontario;

“(e) to diversify the economic base of northern Ontario with particular emphasis on single-resource communities and areas of traditional high unemployment and further with particular emphasis on the development of small business and economic endeavours employing research and technological development capacities and facilities in northern Ontario; and”

Mr. Pope: I cannot claim authorship of this amendment. In fact, it was the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Kozyra), whose words I extracted from his speech last Tuesday and placed into the amendment. I presume that he and others in the Liberal caucus will therefore be supporting this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: While my colleague the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) is getting clarification on some parts of the amendment, perhaps I could indicate that as I was listening to my friend the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) read the amendment -- and I would like him to comment on this -- it seemed to me that in the explanation the new clauses (c), (d) and (e) seem to be going over ground covered in clauses (a) and (b) of the section.

I noted particularly the mention, I believe within clause (e), of the word “diversification,” which I say to my friend the member for Cochrane South is found in clause (a). Also, the wording of the second of his amended clauses seems to simply add some specificity to the current clause (b) of section 5, which has the words “to promote and stimulate economic initiatives.”

I am wondering if my friend the member for Cochrane South, who I know has been listening quite attentively, would indicate why he has found it necessary to propose that we widen clauses (a) and (b). Perhaps at that point my colleague the minister may want to make some comments.

Mr. Pope: My understanding of the process that was engaged in, the consultation process that we embarked upon over the past year and a half -- and perhaps the government House leader can wave when he is ready -- was that it involved conferences that were held and hosted by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and meetings that the Minister of Northern Development was involved in with other cabinet colleagues in various parts of northern Ontario, to assemble opinions and suggestions from residents of northern Ontario about the particular concerns they had as northerners, how they saw limitations being placed on them for no particular reason they could blame anyone for, but limitations or restrictions on their own personal and economic development that they found confronted them living in northern Ontario.

Added to that process was the development of the northern development councils the minister and the government announced early last year and which in fact have met for the last 18 months to try to make recommendations to the minister.

In the debate last week, the parliamentary assistant to the minister, the member for Port Arthur, in response really to my suggestions, read out his recollection of the nine criteria that the representatives of the northern development councils had agreed upon as being the priorities that the northern Ontario heritage fund should address.

These are virtually word for word the recommendations which are lumped into three specific sections, and they provide more specificity to the “objects” clause of the corporation. But they also give a clear direction, both to the councils that have to administer it and from which these recommendations have emanated and also to the residents of northern Ontario, as to what the Minister of Northern Development and the heritage fund corporate board of directors see as their specific mandate.

I know that there are three existing clauses, none of which I touched, except for relettering (c) to read (f), dealing with advising and making recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council with respect to matters relating to the economy of northern Ontario. That is an advisory role; that is not an administrative role. That is to give advice to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, i.e. cabinet, on matters concerning northern Ontario’s economy.

1740

The second one is “to promote and stimulate economic initiatives in northern Ontario.” Under that heading, perhaps, these might fit. I do not think they necessarily do and I think the minister has to be more specific on what kind of economic initiatives. For instance, would he consider the northern heritage fund to fund the diversification of a manufacturing plant into northern Ontario from one of the major car makers, which I think is due, or would the fund be more wide open and would it relate to general government economic activity in northern Ontario, and therefore, would other government ministries fund themselves out of the northern Ontario heritage fund, using this mandate?

I do not think that is intended, but certainly we are not talking about how it will now be used. We are talking about future interpretations and how it could be used or abused, depending on your point of view, in the absence of specific criteria that will direct the directors of the fund.

I think the minister is ready to answer now.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First, the idea the member for Cochrane South is bringing in is OK, but I do not want that to be part of the bill. The reason is that we have told the people of northern Ontario that the directors will decide what they are going to do with that fund. That is why the terms of reference are loose. I am going to say that maybe at some time the member for Cochrane South could go in front of the board and talk to it, as he is doing here today, and tell it about his idea.

Second, I want to remind him about training and skills development. It is already being done by another ministry. Still, the reason we left it this way, I reiterate, is to let the directors of the board decide where it is going to use that money. I do not want to add anything to this today. I want to let the board members decide. I am sure the board at one time will ask the opposition members to speak to it and is going to consult, but it is up to the people in the north. We politicians here will give them a tool, but it will be up to them, the directors, to decide.

Mr. Pope: I guess I have to say that if what the minister has said were the policy of the government, then it would have said in this legislation that the objects of the corporation were to be established by the board, period.

That is not what this act says. It does set out objective clauses. I understand that object clauses are part of any incorporation and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) would acknowledge that. However, I see three object clauses in the existing legislation: One is advisory, one allows them to enter into contracts and one says “to promote and stimulate economic initiatives in northern Ontario.”

I am not sure what that means. I am not sure how that could be interpreted to restrict, for reasons that relate to my other amendments, the flow of funds to the northern Ontario heritage fund board of directors. I am not sure an interpretation of that by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), for instance, would not attach as a condition on the transfer of moneys to the board. I am not sure the limitations by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, i.e. the cabinet of Ontario, might not at a future time be restricted by a restrictive definition of clause 5(b), namely, the objects clause, and I do not want to take a chance on the board of directors being stifled.

I think this is more all-inclusive and embodies, almost word for word, the words of the member for Port Arthur and the recommendations of the local development councils which the Minister of Northern Development asked to provide a list of priorities for the use of the fund. As I understood the member for Port Arthur, there were nine priorities established, on balance supported by most of the development councils, and it is that wording I wished to implement. I do not think it unduly restricts the board. I think it protects the integrity of the board to carry on the initiatives that its members themselves feel northerners want.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I want to reiterate that I too consulted with the northern development councils. I consulted two weeks ago with the people of northern Ontario, with the mayors and reeves of my area. I told them what I am telling the member today, that they are going to decide how they are going to use the money. I got a standing ovation, so I must be saying a few good things.

This is the promise I made and that is why I do not want to complicate the issue. I want them to decide where they are going to use the money. I am sure there will be no restriction. I am telling the member they will look at my statement, at what I said in the House. Again, I am sure the board will not allow me to manipulate it. I deal with about 123 of those people already with the NDCs and I do not manipulate them either. Those 17, 18 or 20 members will not let me, or any government or any member, tell them what to do. They are going to decide. They are waiting for this and they are going to decide themselves what they are going to do.

Mr. Pouliot: I have some difficulties with the first clause, with respect, if I may quote -- this is an amendment from our friends, ironically, to the left -- “to provide and guarantee to every resident of northern Ontario equality of opportunity for education, training, skills development and social and economic enhancement and improvement.” Had we access to a mere percentage of what is being proposed, there would be no need for the northern heritage fund. In fact, we would be willing to have a southern heritage fund. It would be needed. They would wish to re-establish the difference between north and south.

I too wish to make the bill a real working bill, a functional bill. There is no contradiction. We opposed it on second reading. We are pleased with the amendment. We now have the guarantee that it will be strengthened by being administered for northerners by northerners and it meets our vision of the fund.

I think that when the objects of the bill are “to promote and stimulate,” the way you are seen is very important. If it is administered by northerners -- and they are perfectly capable of doing so -- you are going some way towards achieving more credibility.

In terms of “to create,” and I am quoting from the proposed amendment by my friend the member for Cochrane South, “(d) To create more, and more highly skilled and diversified employment opportunities for residents of northern Ontario,” we can dream, and dream in Technicolor. It will come one day and I am sure there will be a focus to do exactly that. But to direct people in a law that they have to do so -- We must remind ourselves that we are resource based. The nature of the north does not necessarily always, or at most times, lend itself to respecting the spirit of the legislation and its intent by saying we will have more skills.

If this were to pass, maybe the money would be sitting accumulating interest for quite a long time because we could not meet its criteria, so I am somewhat defensive.

Of course, on the other hand, when I get to the proposed amendment put forward by the member for Cochrane South, which is clause (e), “To diversify the economic base of northern Ontario with particular emphasis on single-resource communities,” he was doing so well, I could say, and then by the third line we were right back at the table of sin. I like the intent to diversify and I do not think we have to enshrine that in the legislation. I think it speaks for itself that the very purpose of the fund is not to copy anything that has been done before but to give people new and more opportunities.

I think the fund addresses that. I have some difficulty in acquiescing in the support sought by the member for Cochrane South and members of his party, although I do respect that his intent was, perhaps, with some passion, but with no vengeance whatsoever, but I have difficulty with the specifics of the amendments.

1750

Mr. Pope: Very briefly, I do not apologize for expressing in legislative terms the dreams or aspirations of northerners and I do not think any northerner should apologize for putting it into law. I do not think we have to be defensive about what we expect our northern Ontario heritage fund to do. It was set up specifically with the policy direction and with great fanfare by the government to do something significant, special and extraordinary for northern Ontario.

The development councils themselves have used these words. The member for Port Arthur, in reporting on the development councils, has used these words. They may be lofty goals or ideals or dreams, but what is wrong with having those as the objectives so that every resident of northern Ontario, man, woman and child, can look forward to the northern Ontario heritage fund trying to accomplish some of these goals that we set for it?

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Pope’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Do I have unanimous consent of the House to stack the votes?

Mr. Harris: Could we agree to stack the votes until the bill is finished or until tomorrow?

The Deputy Chairman: I have a suggestion made by the member for Nipissing that we stack the votes until the bill is completed tomorrow.

Mr. Harris: Until the bill is finished.

The Deputy Chairman: Until the bill is finished.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Certainly, I am quite agreeable to stack these votes until we have concluded this process. Then we will, by consent of House leaders, organize that as needs be.

Agreed to.

Vote stacked.

On section 6:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Pope moves that subsection 6(2) be amended by deleting “may” in the second line and by replacing it with the word “shall;” and that subsection 6(2) be amended by adding, after the word “grants” in the second line the words “not in any fiscal year to be less than $30 million;” and

That subsection 6(2) be amended by deleting the words “subject to such conditions as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable” and by replacing them with the words “without condition or limitation save as imposed by this act, and such grants shall immediately be deposited in an account or accounts in branches of chartered banks or duly licensed financial institutions located in northern Ontario.

The Deputy Chairman: May I just have a moment to look at the first part of that? If you would like to discuss the second part, you can continue with the second part.

Mr. Pope: Just to indicate how subsection 6(2) would now read, this is 6(2): “The minister, out of moneys appropriated therefor by the Legislature, shall make grants, not in any fiscal year to be less than $30 million, to the corporation for deposit in the fund without condition or limitation, save as imposed by this act, and such grants shall immediately be deposited in an account or accounts in branches of chartered banks or duly licensed financial institutions located in northern Ontario.”

The effect of this is that the Treasurer, the minister and the government must pay to the fund every year $30 million as a minimum. They must pay it as a minimum, without condition other than “as imposed by this act,” and they must deposit that $30 million in a northern Ontario branch of a chartered bank or financial institution. That is the effect of the amendments.

The Deputy Chairman: I have reviewed carefully the first part of your amendment. From what you have said and from looking at it carefully, it would appear that the first part is out of order under standing order 15. Standing order 15 states that a bill cannot specifically direct the allocation of public funds. In my opinion, that directs the allocation of public funds directly. Therefore, I rule that the first part is out of order.

Mr. Pope: I want to speak to that ruling.

The Deputy Chairman: If the member wishes to challenge my ruling, he may do so.

Mr. Pope: Do not start that. We will be here all night. What I am trying to say is that the government has the ability to agree to that amendment and solve that.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. If I have made the ruling, that is my understanding. I find that if you wish to challenge the ruling, you may do so. To do that, we can --

Mr. Harris: Madam Chairman, can we ask questions about the ruling so that you might assist us in your capacity as chairperson to arrive at what we want to accomplish? If that is OK, I would like to ask you a few questions.

The Deputy Chairman: As you are aware, the standing order says “directly.” If you wish to challenge it, you may do so. There should not be any discussion.

Mr. Harris: I am not challenging your ruling, Madam Chairman. What I am asking is if I can ask you some questions about it that will facilitate us in coming up with what we want to do.

The Deputy Chairman: I should not get into the debate with respect to it. If you wish to have a moment to speak to the government House leader or to the minister with respect to that, I am more than prepared to allow you to do that, because I assume there is something that you may be able to come to an accommodation about.

Mr. Harris: I do not understand what it is that you object to, Madam Chairman. Do you object to the word “shall”? Are you saying you are ruling it out of order if the word “shall” is in there and everything else is out? Are you ruling it out of order if the word “shall” is there with the “$30 million”? I do not know what to challenge yet.

Hon. Mr. Conway: As I understand the first part of the amendment standing in the name of the member for Cochrane South and the interpretation of the chair, which quite frankly would be my view, the purport of the first portion of the amendment of the member for Cochrane South is to direct the expenditure of public funds. That certainly is at variance, I would argue, with standing order 15. That is what I understand the debate to be about.

The Deputy Chairman: If I might --

Mr. Harris: I asked a specific question.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Nipissing is the last member I will hear with respect to this.

Mr. Harris: I guess if the “$30 million” is in there, if “shall” instead of “may” makes it out of order, I might understand that. If the second part of the amendment is not in there, if the word “shall” is the only amendment that was put, in my view that then applies to “shall out of the moneys appropriated.” In other words, the appropriation of money is there. We are not calling for the appropriation of moneys. Once the government, the Treasurer and the cabinet say, “Here is the money. This is the amount of money,” all we are doing is saying “shall.”

What I am asking is whether it is out of order if “shall” is in there and the “30 million” is out, or whether it is out of order because the “$30 million” is in there as well.

The Deputy Chairman: I would make the ruling is that it is out of order because the “shall” is there and also because of the “$30 million.” Both of those offend standing order 15 in that it is directing the allocation of public funds.

If you wish to challenge that ruling, you may do so. If not, we will continue discussion on this amendment with respect to the second part; that is, “subject to such conditions as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable,” etc.

Mr. Pope: I apologize, Madam Chairman. Is your ruling not applicable if the words “not in any fiscal year to be less than $30 million” are deleted?

The Deputy Chairman: “Shall” offends section 15 as well, and also “not in any fiscal year.” Both of them do offend.

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Madam Chairman: Could you rule then whether or not subsection 6(2) is objectionable and out of order on the same basis? It talks about appropriation of funds.

The Deputy Chairman: With respect to the second, it is my understanding, and I so find, that the second part of it has a minister of the crown making the allocation and that it would be appropriate.

It being six of the clock, I will rise --

Mr. Harris: Good idea. Let’s adjourn.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Just before moving that the committee rise and report, I would just say, from listening to this discussion, that there may be a way in which the spirit of this can be captured using different language and we might use the opportunity of the next few hours to try to do that.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

May 25, 1988

VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

SCHOOL FUNDING

DUCKS UNLIMITED CANADA

OFFICE OF THE WORKER ADVISER

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

PROVINCIAL PARKS

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

STATEMENT BY THE MIMSTRY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

RESPONSES

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

PROPERTY SPECULATION

HOSPITAL SERVICES

PREMIER’S COUNCIL

SEWAGE DUMP SITE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

SCHOOL FUNDING

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

WATER QUALITY

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

AVORTEMENT

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

NATUROPATHY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WEED CONTROL ACT / LOI SUR LA DESTRUCTION DES MAUVAISES HERBES

GRAIN ELEVATOR STORAGE AMENDMENT ACT

FARM PRODUCTS CONTAINERS ACT

METROPOLITAN TORONTO CONVENTION CENTRE CORPORATION ACT

OTTAWA CONGRESS CENTRE ACT / LOI SUR LE CENTRE DES CONGRÈS D’OTTAWA

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND ACT / LOI SUR LE FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO (CONTINUED / SUITE)

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND ACT / LOI SUR LE FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO