L025 - Fri 18 Oct 1985 / Ven 18 oct 1985
WOMEN'S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND
EXTENDICARE LONDON NURSING HOME
URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.
USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD
ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers.
VISITORS
Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery Senator Corraro, mayor of Gibellina, Italy, together with a delegation of officials from Gibellina.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
Mr. Martel: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: For the last couple of years I have been trying to assist a number of people suffering from environmental sensitivity disorders. The continuing reply I get from the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) is that the study is being done by Judge Thomson.
It is my understanding that this report has been sitting on the Minister of Health's desk for at least a month. I wonder whether you, as Speaker, would assist me in obtaining a copy of this report so we can finally come to a conclusion that will help those people who suffer from this disorder.
Mr. Speaker: I would be very glad to assist the member by suggesting that he ask the minister during question period.
Mr. Martel: Good idea.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
VISIT TO UNITED STATES
Hon. Mr. Peterson: On Monday I will begin a three-day series of meetings with United States officials in Washington and I would like to apprise the members of the purposes and plans for this visit.
The nine million people of this province have much at stake in relations with the United States. Access to the US market is vital to Ontario. Last year this province sent 90 per cent of its exports to the United States. Trade with the Americans is responsible for one million jobs in Ontario.
On the other side of the coin, trade with Ontario is responsible for one million jobs in the United States. In 1984, American exports to Ontario reached $50 billion. Last year this province received more US exports than Japan. We are the biggest and best customers the Americans have.
Co-operation with the United States on environmental concerns is just as vital to Ontario. If we cannot pass on to our children a legacy that includes clean air and fresh lakes, little else that we pass on will be of any value. That is why we plan to increase our contacts with US officials at the federal and state levels in the executive and legislative branches. Our visit next week is just one step in that direction.
In our meetings with US administration and congressional officials, I plan to concentrate on four objectives on behalf of the people of this province.
1. I will continue to promote Canada's case for secure market access and emphasize how important trade with the United States is to Canadians. I will also point out Canada's record as an exemplary fair trader and emphasize how important trade with Canada is to Americans.
2. I will seek to develop a clear understanding of the goals the United States will attempt to meet in trade talks. I will, of course, share what I learn with this House, the federal government and our sister provinces.
For example, one question I have voiced in the past is whether the federal government's decision to enter into free trade talks will forestall protectionist measures in Washington. Just yesterday a senior US trade official with whom I will meet said President Reagan's administration will crack down on Canadian trade practices to which it objects despite the recent request for bilateral talks.
3. I will attempt to establish closer, ongoing contact with our American neighbours. I am especially anxious to develop a strong relationship with congressional representatives from the Great Lakes states.
4. I will put forward Ontario's prime concerns regarding acid rain, pollution of the Great Lakes and other environmental issues. I will make it clear that this government is committed to dealing with our environmental problems.
In pursuit of these goals, I will meet with senior administration officials such as US Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter, Labour Secretary William Brock, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Thomas, leading members of the House of Representatives and Senate from both parties, and leaders from outside government.
I emphasize that this visit is just one step in an extensive process. Our efforts to improve dialogue with the United States do not begin on Monday nor end on Wednesday. Today I will meet with the US ambassador to Canada and in the near future with Governors and representatives of the Great Lakes states.
The aims we have set for our relations with the United States in general and this working visit in particular are clear, specific and obtainable. I am hopeful this effort will help to open the door to a strengthened economy and a cleaner and safer environment.
FOREST MANAGEMENT
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As all members know, our government is committed to an independent audit of Ontario's forest resources. Today I would like to bring members up to date on that independent audit and a number of related initiatives which deal with the health of Ontario's forest estate and which I will be tabling in this House over the next two months.
We all know healthy forests are vital to our economy, to employment, to the future of whole communities, especially in northern Ontario, and to our tourism and outdoor recreation industries. Few other natural resources contribute as much, both economically and socially. As well, we recognize that good forest management must be accountable to the public of this province and that Ontarians must have the opportunity to become involved in major forestry decisions. That involvement and that accountability are not possible without a solid data base of information.
We must also ensure that Ontarians have ready access to this information, that they know the facts about their forests. As a step in this direction, I will soon be tabling a recent report on forest management, which was prepared by the Provincial Auditor as part of my staff's regular review of the management practices of the government.
In the past such a report would not become public information unless the Provincial Auditor chose to include all or the most significant highlights in the regular year-end audit report. We will release the full report, however, because I believe Ontarians want the facts on forest management so they can judge for themselves.
10:10 a.m.
I will also be tabling the official response to the provincial audit report prepared by my ministry. As well, I will be tabling the reports of the first five-year review of the first forest management agreements, or FMAs, in Ontario.
Under the FMA program, major forest industries began assuming responsibility in 1980 for integrating harvesting and regeneration. The reports indicate that this is being accomplished and also that the companies are committed to the program. That is good news about a program we have always thought was a step in the right direction. The government is looking forward to the results of the five-year reviews of all the other FMAs that have been signed since 1980.
I have also instructed my staff to provide a complete report, including background material, on the state of our forest resources now and a projection for 20 years from now. Once compiled, that report will be reviewed and critically analysed by a fully qualified authority from outside Ontario. That report and the independent audit will be tabled here by next July 31. The report and audit will be the first important documents in a comprehensive new publicly available data base of information about our forest resources.
A series of public hearings on an environmental assessment for timber management will also be held. That environmental assessment document is to be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment by December 31 of this calendar year. The hearings on it will begin in the latter half of next year.
These steps are only the first in a series that this government will take to improve public knowledge of the practice of forest management in Ontario and the health of our forest estate. My belief is that we must practise forestry in a way that offers due regard for the resource, the environment, the communities affected and the other users. At the same time, we must also be able to convince the people of this province that we are using the resource wisely and well and are renewing it for future generations.
I believe this public sharing of numbers, facts and concerns about forestry is essential in this province if we are to build a consensus to utilize properly this magnificent renewable public resource, our forests. For the greatest benefit of all the people of Ontario, our forests must be kept for both today and tomorrow.
WOMEN'S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND
Hon. Mr. Scott: Fifty-six years ago today a constitutional law decision was handed down that affected and continues to affect all Canadian women. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England ruled on October 18, 1929, that women were persons under the British North America Act.
That decision, simple as it seems today, was a stunning victory for women's rights, the reverberations of which are still being felt 50 years later. In recognition of the importance of that decision, today is now officially known as Persons Day.
Lord Sankey in the Privy Council, in handing down this historic decision, noted the importance of ensuring that a constitutional document be given a large and liberal interpretation. He likened the British North America Act, in words that have been used subsequently in all our constitutional cases, to "a living tree capable of growth and expansion."
This principle, which continues to govern the interpretation of our Constitution, offers women the chance to reinterpret and reformulate our fundamental laws to reflect changing needs and aspirations. This is particularly important now that we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our Constitution. The charter must be a living tree growing and responding to contemporary Canadian needs.
To help ensure that the charter achieves its potential for women, on July 2, 1985, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) pledged that the government would set up a $1-million fund to support court cases based on the women's rights guarantees in the charter. Today I take great pleasure in announcing that this fund will be made available to the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund to support new equality rights litigation brought by Ontario women.
The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, also known as LEAF, is a national, nonprofit corporation formed specifically to provide educative, research and legal expertise with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is nationally recognized as the only organization in Canada established specifically to provide funding for charter cases affecting women. LEAF has relevant expertise in selecting appropriate cases for charter funding and has already formulated criteria to determine the worthiness of a case.
I believe LEAF is in a position to direct this $1-million fund in a way that will significantly enhance the equality rights of women in Ontario. It is not for government to decide which women's issues will be brought before the courts; it is for women themselves. It was, after all, the determination of five steadfast women activists from various parts of Canada that pursued the persons case 50 years ago to its successful conclusion. We have recognized this by leaving the selection of individual cases entirely in the hands of LEAF.
This fund is a significant commitment to the vigour of our constitutional law. It also confirms this government's determination to ensure equality for women, equal access to the courts and equal opportunity in all life's endeavours. It demonstrates the government's willingness to subject itself to the strictest of scrutiny to ensure that no discrimination, whether overt or unintentional, exists in our legislation and policies.
At the same time, I stress this government's commitment and willingness to modify laws by legislation rather than by needless litigation. Lord Sankey noted in 1929, and it is equally valid in 1985, that "customs are apt to develop into traditions which are stronger than law and remain unchallenged long after the reason for them has disappeared." We propose to continue to review these customs and traditions and will amend any laws that require change. However, it is in recognition of the fact that litigation cannot always be avoided in charter matters that we have made available the $1-million fund.
This government is fully committed to the goal of achieving full practical and legal equality for women. The funding being provided today will help ensure that our laws conform, not just to the letter of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also to its spirit.
ORAL QUESTIONS
RENT REVIEW
Mr. Timbrell: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The minister will recall that in the now famous accord signed by his leader and the leader of the third party, his party and his government committed themselves to extending rent controls to all buildings. He will also recall that on the day on which he was sworn into his portfolio he did not know what the policy of his party and his government was and he had to look it up. More recently, in London, the minister was quoted as saying his government would consider lifting the controls.
Will the minister tell the House today which promise he intends to break: the promise to the New Democratic Party and to the voters in the last election, or the promise to the development industry, which he has led to think this government is prepared to let it go on and build and restore a competitive rental marketplace?
10:20 a.m.
Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member said that when I was sworn in I did not know the policy of my party. I cannot recall saying anything like that. I presume he must be hearing a different voice.
As he knows, we are developing a policy and we could not follow the same policy of the previous government because it was such a patchwork. That is why we have taken our time. In three months, we have covered more ground than the previous government did in bringing about a housing policy. He will be impressed with what he sees.
Mr. Timbrell: I realize the government has been going to great expense and effort to educate its aides and ministers on the rules of the House. I did not realize they had learned that the rules say one does not have to answer a question. He has not answered one yet.
This Tuesday, in answer to a question of mine, the minister indicated builders had told him they were going to build in Ontario with, in effect, their own money. The very next day, Bramalea Ltd., one of the largest builders in Ontario, told the Thom commission it would not bring to completion 1,100 rental units in the region of Peel.
Who is going to build in this province in 1986? Tell us today who is going to build new rental accommodation, creating those jobs and providing that alternative housing? Name some of those builders here today.
Hon. Mr. Curling: It is very unfortunate that Bramalea will not be building, if it has indicated that. We need all the builders we can get. We have been having consultation over three months and the Committee for Fair Housing Policy has sat down with me a number of times. It has indicated a positive approach towards bringing housing supply into the province.
Mr. McClellan: I want to go back to the first question which, I must agree with my colleague, the minister has failed to answer. In the London Free Press of September 5, 1985, the minister said to a business group, "The government may look at the removal of controls as early as next year." He did not campaign on that theme although the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) did.
Would the minister tell the House under what conditions the government is prepared to end rent controls in Ontario? The House deserves an answer to that question. Is it the policy of the Liberal Party, as it is for the Conservative party, that rent controls are here today but gone tomorrow?
Hon. Mr. Curling: If I am responding to the statement the member read from the London Free Press, when I was asked if we would look at rent controls in the future, I said, "Of course we will." I was then asked if I would look at them as early as next year. I said, "Of course I will." That was my response.
Mr. Timbrell: Like the lawyer at the bar, I am tempted to say, "I rest my case." The minister has no policy. He cannot assure this house there will be one single rental unit constructed in 1986 without massive government subsidies or loans. Will he please answer the question: who is going to build much needed rental housing in 1986 in Ontario, when the largest builder in the province has already said it will not build because of his policy? Who is going to provide that necessary employment?
Hon. Mr. Curling: When I arrived and was honoured by the Premier asking me to be the Minister of Housing, one of the first things I asked the staff was to show me the housing policy that was in place, and that is the response I got, "What policy?"
I then thought we should start looking at all the people involved in bringing affordable accommodation to this great province of ours and I set up a consultation process. If the member could just wait a while --
Mr. Davis: In the fullness of time.
Hon. Mr. Curling: Our fullness of time is that we have been in three months. In 42 years there was no policy. In three months, we have come much farther than the previous government did. The member will see a good policy coming about.
Mr. Timbrell: Is that not wonderful? We can now say to the trade: "Just wait three months. Trust us." We can now say to people who are looking for rental accommodation, "Just wait three months." We can say to people who are paying key money, "Wait three months."
RADIOACTIVE SOIL
Mr. Timbrell: I have another question to the same minister. Now that the minister and the government of Ontario have established that the levels of radioactivity in the soil at the homes on McClure Crescent in the Malvern subdivision are at the standard for government acquisition and compensation, will the minister please tell us when he plans to begin to provide inspectors to home owners in any part of Ontario where they suspect radioactive soil and the effects of same on their property? Will he indicate when he will provide the authority to purchase such homes, as well as the ones on McClure Crescent?
Hon. Mr. Curling: I am trying to understand the member's question. I heard quite a few questions in there. Is he asking me when am I going to provide inspectors on other sites?
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Curling: The McClure situation is a special case involving the federal and provincial governments. There was inaction by the previous government, which for five years did not do anything. We acted on it.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Timbrell: The minister has established a precedent with his announcement on Tuesday. Surely fairness and equity demand that he make the same available to any home owner in any community; for example, Port Hope.
I want to know whether the minister is prepared to say to someone from Port Hope or any other community who comes to this government and demands equal treatment, "Yes, we will test your home. Yes, we will buy your home. Yes, we will move you. Yes, we will rent that property," in exactly the same way as he has done in Malvern, in his own constituency. Will the minister do that?
Hon. Mr. Curling: The member knows that each case is looked at separately. I am not prepared to give the same offer to any other place until we can look at it.
Mrs. Grier: Can the minister tell the House whether in his time in office he has been able to determine a list of locations in the province where the previous government allowed housing to be built on radioactive soil?
Hon. Mr. Curling: I am not aware of anywhere that the government knowingly built homes on radioactive soil. If a case comes forth, we will take a look at it.
Mr. Timbrell: We are not getting any answers.
10:30 a.m.
EXTENDICARE LONDON NURSING HOME
Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Attorney General, the chief law officer of the province. He will be aware that there is a fundamental duty of care imposed on all of us who have children and imposed on all of those who have responsibility for caring for people, whether it be in an institution, a family setting or whatever.
With respect to the tragic events that have occurred at the Extendicare London Nursing Home, the minister will be aware that an epidemic broke out and that there was a statutory duty, in addition to any other common law duties, set out specifically in the Nursing Homes Act and in the Health Protection and Promotion Act, giving certain very specific requirements of informing authorities with respect to the outbreak of an epidemic. He will be aware that there was a delay in so informing the authorities. He will also be aware that a report was made --
Mr. Speaker: Is the question, "Is he aware"?
Mr. Rae: -- which said, "It is inconceivable that the above conditions existed so long after the occurrence of a probable food-borne disease."
Would the Attorney General consider talking to his senior crown attorneys to assess whether or not these obligations, which are set out by statute and which exist in common law, have been breached in so fundamental a way that they merit the direct attention of the Attorney General and his department?
Hon. Mr. Scott: I am grateful to my friend for this question on an important matter. We are all troubled by the occurrence of those unexplained deaths and, as my honourable friend knows, a coroner's investigation is under way, which we hope will elicit some of the facts. When that investigation and report is complete, it will be made available in due course to the crown law officers and we will determine what steps are to be taken. We are watching it very closely.
Mr. Rae: The difficulty is, as I am sure the Attorney General will be aware, our information is that the earliest an inquest could be started is some time in the middle of January, according to the schedule that we understand as recently as yesterday was being established by the coroner's offices in that part of Ontario.
Is the Attorney General aware of any police investigation or any police interviews of witnesses? Is he aware of a statement made by Dr. Korn on the Sunday morning radio program of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. in which, in response to a specific question, he said that if he had known a little bit earlier, it might have been possible for something more to have been done?
The Attorney General will be aware of the legal consequences of delay and of failing to fulfil duties that are set out very specifically at common law and by statute. Given the seriousness of what has happened, will the Attorney General consider having the police involved?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Quite a few questions have been asked there.
Hon. Mr. Scott: As my friend knows, when a coroner's investigation is undertaken, the investigative work is done by officers of the police force, usually the Ontario Provincial Police, who are sworn in as coroner's constables; so the investigation that is under way is being conducted by the police. Crown law officers will be made aware of the results of the investigation, and if it is appropriate at any stage to lay charges, either before or after the coroner's inquest has taken place, he may rest assured that this will be done.
Mr. Rae: The Attorney General will be aware that one of the initiatives taken some time ago by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) when he was the Minister of Health, and subsequently by Mr. Norton when he was the Minister of Health, was to appoint a crown attorney who had specific responsibilities for prosecutions dealing with nursing homes. It is my understanding that this individual has now gone back to working directly in the crown attorney's office and is no longer attached specifically to the Ministry of Health.
Does the Attorney General not think it worth while for him and the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to get together on this issue and ensure that the most effective gathering of evidence, the toughest and most stringent examination, is made without regard to special position in society or anything of that kind so we can be assured that justice is done and that difficult questions are asked and answered with respect to what has taken place here?
Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to emphasize, first of all, that the Minister of Health and I keep in close contact on this and on other matters.
The fact is that it is not the practice of the crown law officers to lay charges when there is inadequate evidence to sustain them. We are investigating to determine whether the evidence is available. If the evidence is available, charges will be laid. If the evidence is not available after the investigation, charges will not be laid.
URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.
Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. It arises from some of the comments he has been making about the Urban Transportation Development Corp. The Premier will be aware that the previous government appointed Mr. Gracey to carry out recommendations with respect to privatization which I understand the government, as the inheritor of the Conservative mantle, is determined to carry on with. That is how I would interpret the various comments the Premier has made.
One of the comments made throughout the Gracey report is that even if one accepts the notion of privatization, and setting that aside for a moment, the way in which it is done is extremely important. The Premier will be aware that he has made what I can only regard as casual, offhand comments with respect to the state of affairs of UTDC and what the state of profitability of the company really is. He raised it in a very speculative way in the middle of a speech a couple of weeks ago. In answer to questions from my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), he made several statements to the House that can only have reduced confidence in that company.
Even if the Premier is really serious about carrying on the possibility of privatization, why in the name of goodness is he dealing with it in that way? Surely he must understand and appreciate that the effect of his remarks is going to be to reduce confidence in UTDC and cause grave concern for most people who now are working there.
Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me assure the honourable leader that I am not an idealogue about this situation. I am interested in the future of UTDC. I am concerned that it is in the appropriate place. As I have said before, there are opinions from many people that if there were some element of privatization, it could entertain and be engaged in a number of businesses it is not now engaged in, and that would substantially contribute to employment and to the viability of UTDC. That is why we are looking at the options.
In response to the member's question that I should not be talking about this in public, I am surprised he would put it that way because I believe we should be open and frank about what our intentions are. I cannot think of anything that would more undermine the confidence of the people who work there, and indeed of the customers, than having some secret things going on behind the scenes. I have clearly suggested we are looking at that and at a number of other acquisitions the former government made, such as the Suncor shares and a number of others, for the most effective way either to recover losses or to contribute to ongoing viability.
I want to assure the member of one point. One of the terms and considerations in this whole exercise is to maintain, enhance and expand employment, not to reduce it. We are there and we will make the enhancement and maintenance of that employment a condition of any deal with respect to privatization. I think the fact that we have been candid with everyone in this regard would contribute to confidence rather than erode it.
Mr. Rae: The government has not been candid. The government has been half-baked and disorganized. Let us be very clear. What we have here is the suppression of a confidential appendix to a report that listed a number of companies set out by Mr. Gracey as eligible for privatization. We have not seen that report. We have been told we cannot see that report because, to quote Mr. Gracey, "It would almost certainly destroy the confidentiality necessary for commercial and competitive operations and could undermine the government's negotiating stance in any divestiture."
We do not have that list, so the Premier should not talk to me about candour. The Premier has not been candid at all. He has simply been half-baked. He has gone off and said: "There may be some. Maybe it will be UTDC. Maybe it will be Suncor. Maybe it will be the Ontario Land Corp."
This government cannot be taken seriously in what it is trying to do as economic manager of the province with respect to crown assets and corporations. Specifically, if the Premier is so determined to be candid, why does he not present us with a list, tell us what the list is, make it all very clear and public and be up front and organized about the way he is going about running the business of the province instead of this half-baked way in which certain corporations are listed in a casual manner and we are not told about anything else?
10:40 a.m.
Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is strange to be lectured by a member of the New Democratic Party on how to manage. But that having been said, I am having difficulty figuring out the member's opinion. Is he telling me I should not talk about it or that I should give him everything? What is his position on this matter?
I have been candid about our intention to review the disposition of certain crown assets, obviously to try to enhance them or to cut losses. I have said that. Is he asking me for the financial details? Is he asking me to be involved in those negotiations? Is he asking me to sit down and go over all the figures so he can do the deal? What is he asking me?
I have told him, and I will say again, that we are looking at the situation. We are going to protect it, we are going to do the best we can in the circumstances and we will look at the specifics of the deal when it comes down the pipe. I do not think it is constructive that all the details of the negotiation be public at this point; they obviously will be at some point if a deal is made.
My sense is that those employees, who may have had some concern, now that we have had the discussion -- and the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) can perhaps assist us in this -- will be much reassured by my comments. They will know what is going on and they will know that we are there to protect them.
Mr. Brandt: If the Premier feels some discomfort in being lectured by the NDP, perhaps he would feel more comfortable in being lectured by the Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker: Is that a question?
Mr. Brandt: As someone who has had some business experience, he must surely understand that by making the public aware of the fact that he is going to conduct some kind of quasi-fire sale of assets, immediately at that point he diminishes the value of those assets very substantially, obviously with one ulterior motive in mind, to embarrass the former government.
Will the Premier confirm or deny that as a result of these musings with respect to some of the assets he proposes to sell off at whatever cost, at whatever price, he has had some indication of interest from Quebec firms? Will he at this time identify whether or not he has had such expressions of interest?
Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, let me assure the honourable member that it is not my intention to try to embarrass the former government. They have embarrassed themselves. I am trying to do the best with a situation that even his members are embarrassed about. Take Suncor, for example, for which the former government paid $650 million.
Mr. Brandt: Let us take the Urban Transportation Development Corp. as the example.
Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am giving the member an example of the kind of problems we are trying to deal with constructively. The answer to his question about UTDC is that there has been a substantial amount of interest from various sectors. We are analysing those options, discussions are proceeding, and we will make the best deal for Ontario and for the people who work there.
Mr. Foulds: I would like to ask the Premier whether he intends to follow the plans of the Tory task force to divest the province of its crown assets. Specifically, does he have definite plans to sell all or part of UTDC? If he does not, why does he engage in this philosophical meandering that is causing damage to the corporation, both locally in Kingston and Thunder Bay and internationally on the market?
What plans does he have to maintain one of only four secondary manufacturing plants in northern Ontario? There are only four that employ more than 400 people. What plans does he have to maintain them?
Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me assure the honourable member that this would be a condition of any deal we made regarding that plant. In particular, Can-Car Rail, which he is referring to, would be maintained, as well as the Kingston facility. I want him to understand this and to feel assured of it. I want him to go home this weekend and tell everybody in Thunder Bay that those jobs will be maintained, and he can take the credit for it. I would like him to do that.
Second, it would be better, I believe, to let people know of the kinds of discussions we are engaged in than to suppress them. I have seen the Gracey report, and he has a number of suggestions, obviously. I think it is healthy for every government to review some of the decisions made in the past and to look for better ways of optimizing our opportunities and of prudently looking after taxpayers' dollars. That is why we are engaged in the exercise that we are, and we will continue.
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. During and since the spring election campaign, both he and his leader have made much of their contention that they were going to create jobs for young people and new opportunities for young people. In fact, because of their inaction, absolutely the reverse has occurred.
Why has the minister frozen grant approvals and new youth employment jobs under the Ontario Youth Corps program and why has he failed to renew funding for the Youth Works program? Through his inaction and his ministry's inaction, he has hung out to dry hundreds of young people like those in the galleries today who could be working.
Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I take issue with the facts the honourable member has presented to the House. This government and my ministry will very shortly be announcing a youth employment program which is --
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The fact that the members say a whole summer has been lost is completely incorrect. All the programs, a plethora of programs, a hotchpotch of programs, as the former minister used to describe them, have been continued during the summer. Some expired on October 1, but I would inform the member, although he knows full well, that funds have been provided for a transition period, from October 1 until a new program comes in, that involves consolidation and simplification of programs, a program that will be comprehensible to young people and a program that will be consistent and fulfil the promises that this party and this government made during the campaign and thereafter.
Mr. Gillies: The young people of this province cannot eat the minister's promises. He said he was going to take action. He said he was going to increase opportunities. In fact, he has done nothing. We are not talking about the future. Why has the minister not approved grant approvals?
We have complaints here from community groups and municipalities in Atikokan, Brantford, Kingston and Toronto, all asking why they cannot get their grants approved to put these young people to work. By the minister's answer, I believe he is indicating that he and his leader have misled the public. They have also misled the New Democratic Party in their accord and, as recently as Tuesday, the Premier has misled this House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the words stating the Premier has misled this House.
Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Speaker: Yes or no?
Mr. Gillies: -- on Tuesday in this House the Premier said he would increase employment --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Yes or no?
Mr. Gillies: I know what I have said is factual and I cannot in good conscience withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the member will not withdraw and, therefore, I have no other course but to name him. Will the Sergeant at Arms ask the member to leave the chamber.
Mr. Gillies left the chamber.
10:50 a.m.
Mr. Warner: Aside from the wild rantings of the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), perhaps the minister could supply a few more details. In his announcement on a new approach to skills development, which is impending, can he tell us now that for the first time in Ontario we will have an absolutely real apprenticeship program involving the three levels, government, business and labour? Will he be announcing that next week?
Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure the question of apprenticeship programs is really supplementary to that posed by our friend who just left.
We had a debate here last night about television cameras. I am sure those kinds of antics will be increased when we have some of these programs.
Mr. Speaker: Will you answer the question, please?
Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Let me respond to the supplementary as best I can without giving away all of the factual information I will be announcing in this House within a few days.
The fact is that we have had in our apprenticeship programs, particularly for young people, programs that have not concentrated sufficiently on training. The commitment the government made, and the Premier made in his ministerial statement on the first day this government sat in this House, was that our program would put greater emphasis on training and would involve a one-year guarantee for employment-disadvantaged young people who were committed to the idea of upgrading their skills.
When I announce that program, I can assure the member that those components will be there, notwithstanding the comments of the former minister.
FOREST MANAGEMENT
Mr. Laughren: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources concerning his announcement today of the forestry audit, something that is overdue and to which the former government would never have agreed.
How did the minister come to the conclusion he could have a legitimate audit, using numbers supplied by his ministry, given the fact that everyone knows those numbers are suspect?
May I assume the minister has read the Fahlgren report, in which Mr. Fahlgren states he found Ministry of Natural Resources sampling to be limited, its forest resources inventory an overestimate of actual timber volume and its annual allowable cut figures artificially high?
Does the minister truly believe it is possible to get a good audit using suspect figures, since the auditor he is going to appoint is simply going to audit figures supplied by his ministry?
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: In response to that question, I would like to share with the member the fact we have great difficulty in many areas of relating the figures to the problem. It is one of the areas with which I am grappling now.
Mr. Foulds: We can understand that.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think that is a legitimate comment to make because we have many people in many industries across this great province who are quarreling with those numbers. I certainly am going to come up with the answers. The first way we are going to do that is by having this audit.
I am not going to restrict the audit to the figures that will be given to the doctor who is going to perform it. I will give him a great deal of latitude. In fact, I have already shared with the member who raised the question the fact that he is going to be invited to participate, and maybe we will broaden the parameters given to the good doctor who is going to do this investigation.
Certainly, he is going to start with figures that are there and available, but he is not going to be restricted in any way from moving beyond them and coming back with an audit all of us will appreciate. I make that offer to the former government to participate as well, because we really mean it when we say it is going to be open. We will look at all of those people who could be helpful in this very important audit.
Mr. Laughren: While the minister may claim the good doctor will not be restricted in his deliberations, he has given him a deadline of next July. It is very difficult to do an on-the-ground audit in northern Ontario in the winter months.
Why will he not give the auditor an extended time? Why will he not give the auditor a team of people to go out there and do the count, rather than rely on numbers supplied by the Ministry of Natural Resources, which the minister knows have been suspect for years? Why will he not have a first-class audit done that once and for all reviews all sorts of questions about the numbers the Ministry of Natural Resources has been giving us over the years?
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: My response to the supplementary question is not a great deal different to my answer in the first place, except to reinforce the position that the auditor will be charged with the responsibility of looking at a broader-range audit that might bring into focus many other aspects of forestry that have to do with the multi-use of our forests.
I am looking to him to provide that information in his report. In fact, we will be asking him to do that. As I said before, I have invited the member to meet with the good doctor, whom I shall name tomorrow, in the initial stages. It is the same for any member from the former government side who is interested. There will be tripartite involvement. We all share in the value of the forest industry, and I want all the members to share in helping to make the decision.
SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS
Mr. Dean: I have a question for the Premier. We have heard him say several times this morning how concerned he is about employment and jobs in Ontario. He referred to it in his ministerial statement regarding possible discussions with the United States about trade. He referred to it in his answer to the question about the Urban Transportation Development Corp. I think I am quoting him correctly when he said, "The government's intention is to retain, enhance and expand employment." That is what he is promising us here and now, but how much is that promise worth?
Mr. Speaker: That is a good question.
Mr. Dean: That is a rhetorical question. I do not think it will take him long to answer that question.
I would like the Premier to cast his mind back about six months when he was going around Ontario during the election campaign making all kinds of promises in various places.
Mr. Speaker: Please place your question.
Mr. Dean: The now Premier told a group of steelworkers in Hamilton that he was concerned about the possibility of job losses. I will quote him: "It would be virtually irresponsible to take 600 Hamilton jobs and throw them down the drain for no real reason." What does the Premier have to say now to the hundreds of steelworkers in Hamilton whose jobs are threatened because his government has broken its promise and is introducing aluminum pop cans?
Hon. Mr. Peterson: I remember those discussions well because we are very concerned about employment in the steel companies producing for the container industry. I had extensive discussions with them all and they all supported our initiative. We have given them two more years before the phase-in of aluminum cans. All of them told me there would be no reduction in employment. The steel companies were very happy with the decision, as were the workers. It gives them time to compete.
The other thing that was said to me was that they were happy to have a government that made decisions, one that did not sit around taking polls and worrying who it might offend.
They had gone through so much indecision and uncertainty for years that everyone was worried. Now we have made the decision, supported, interestingly, by the vast majority of people who are concerned about it. Obviously the aluminum people are not particularly happy with our decision, but I am assured by them all, by Mr. Phoenix, Mr. Allan and the others, that employment will be protected, that steel can complete and that it was a red-letter day for Hamilton.
Mr. Speaker: Do you have a short supplementary?
11 a.m.
Mr. Dean: Yes. I always come right to the point. I do not know how the Premier has the audacity to say that a day when jobs are threatened is a red-letter day for any community. Perhaps in his community that is not a problem, but in my community and in the Hamilton-Wentworth region it is not a red-letter day when the steel companies are threatened with the loss of 600 jobs.
In spite of what the Premier has said, the steelworkers in the Hamilton area are not confident the promise has been kept. What is the Premier going to do to keep the promise that steel jobs in Hamilton will be protected? They are not protected now.
Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure to whom the member has been talking; I think he is misinformed on the subject, I say with great respect.
I have talked extensively with the steel people, as have my colleagues the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and others. That was a major consideration in our policy.
So the member is very clear -- he can read it in Hansard later if he misses it now -- I say again, they tell me there will be no loss of jobs. Therefore, the concern the member has expressed in this House is not a legitimate one. The decision is a good one for Hamilton and is supported by the steel industry. I think the member can go back this weekend and say Hamilton has done very well.
NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE
Mr. Swart: My question is for the Solicitor General. I am sure, even with his rather short term in office, he will be aware of the long history of rather serious allegations against the Niagara Regional Police force. These were allegations of brutality, not responding to civilian complaints and charges that members of the former commission took illegal payments for expenses.
I am sure the minister knows there was an investigation authorized by the previous Solicitor General after a lot of prodding from this side. It turned out to be an in camera investigation and no report was released.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Minister, I believe he is asking whether you are aware of these things.
Mr. Swart: No.
Mr. Speaker: I thought that was the question.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. F. S. Miller) had set a precedent in the past couple of days that could not be exceeded; therefore I thought you would be rather lenient with other back-bench members.
Mr. Speaker: I am sort of letting you know I am not.
Mr. Swart: Is the Solicitor General aware of the allegations about illegal wiretapping made 18 days ago against that police force? Has he read this morning's paper, in which a detective of the force is alleged to have broken either the Criminal Code or the Police Act to get information for a person with a criminal record who describes himself as being "considered a member of organized crime by the Ontario Attorney General?"
According to the newspaper article, that information resulted in that man's beating his wife. I simply want to ask
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swart: This is my final sentence. Does the Solicitor General think this all adds up to the need for an independent and open investigation, preferably headed by a respected judge?
Hon. Mr. Keyes: In answer to the three questions that were asked -- I assume all the supplementaries were rolled into that -- yes, I am aware of the previous allegations and of the investigation work that was done at that time.
With respect to the question as to whether we should have an open investigation, there are investigations going on within the Ontario Police Commission at this moment with regard to the comments made, even in today's press. It would not be appropriate for me to make any additional comments about the state of that investigation while it is still going on in a matter that may end up in other litigation.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is not a public inquiry. Come on!
Hon. Mr. Keyes: I did not say it was a public inquiry.
Mr. Swart: I wonder whether the minister recalls that on the same day the report on the Niagara Regional Police was announced, last July 30, a prominent daily paper carried the news that the Niagara Regional Police was the subject of more civilian complaints than any other police force of its size in Ontario and had twice as many complaints as Hamilton-Wentworth and three times as many as Peel. Would this not in itself convince the minister not only that an investigation is needed but also that he should take the necessary steps to have a civilian complaints bureau for the Niagara Regional Police?
Hon. Mr. Keyes: Perhaps I can answer the last of those three questions this time. I believe the matter of extending the idea of a citizens' complaints bureau is still being reviewed by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). We have seen the example in Metropolitan Toronto, which works extremely well, and there have been discussions of its expansion.
At the moment, as the honourable member knows, most of those investigations are carried out by local police commissions. If people are not satisfied, they come to the Ontario Police Commission and, as I said in my earlier statement, we are looking at it in the Ontario Police Commission at the moment.
RED MEAT PLAN
Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As a result of his meeting with the federal minister yesterday, will he inform the House when tripartite stabilization will be in effect in Ontario and what new programs he will announce to help the Ontario producers before signing the tripartite agreement?
Hon. Mr. Ridden: Let me preface my remarks by saying that I was extremely disappointed that a question was not asked pertaining to agriculture the first day we came back from the summer recess. At least it shows the importance we place on agriculture, and it is somewhat gratifying to see that the Conservative Party now recognizes the relative importance of agriculture in this great province of ours.
I also understand the questioner was somewhat critical of the hat I was wearing the other day. Listen, "KC" means "King of the Castle," the castle being the ministry and the king being the minister. I happen to make the decisions, something the people over there were never able to do.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Are you coming to the answer?
Hon. Mr. Ridden: I am, indeed. We are making great progress towards a tripartite stabilization program. When I went to the ministers' conference two weeks after I became minister, I was the one who got it back on to the agenda, and when we sat around the conference table, I learned that it was the fourth time that this had been discussed at the conference table. In other words, the people over there had three years to do something about it and they did nothing.
We are on the verge of getting a red meat agreement signed. I hope and trust it will be signed by the end of this month or early in November. When we get that agreement signed -- and that is progress those people could not make -- retroactive payments will be made to the beef and pork producers on their second and third quarters.
Mr. Stevenson: Very clearly, the wording in the tripartite stabilization agreement seems fairly binding. I would think the minister would want to give some special help to the producers before signing that agreement, because the other provinces are going to have five years to phase out their programs. What special things is the minister going to do for Ontario producers before signing that agreement?
Hon. Mr. Ridden: Let me remind the honourable member that shortly after I became the minister, we introduced what was considered by the farming community to be the best program they had seen in years. That was the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, a program that will help 10,000 farmers, if not 13,000. We have not received one critical comment about that program.
I have already indicated that we have said right along that we would make retroactive payments consistent with tripartite. These payments, I trust, will be coming out by the end of the month or early in November.
11:10 a.m.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. As he knows, Justine Blainey, who is a very qualified girl hockey player and a constituent of mine, has been prohibited from playing for the Toronto Olympics in the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League because the Ontario Hockey Association's rules ban female players, and the Ontario Supreme Court has recently ruled that subsection 19(2) of the Ontario Human Rights Code which permits this ban is a reasonable violation of the charter.
In the light of the fact that the minister is on record as supporting the decision of the Attorney General to repeal subsection 19(2) and has said in a recent letter to me that he felt an initiative-to-change attitude would be a desirable course of action, will he undertake such an initiative by bringing the parties together as soon as possible to see whether some arrangement can be made to enable Justine to play this year with the team for which she has qualified, so she will not suffer the loss of another year in the development of her promising hockey career?
Hon. Mr. Eakins: I certainly support the Attorney General in his announced plan to repeal subsection 19(2) this year. I have met with some of the people and the lawyer for Justine Blainey. My opinion is that if the coaches and players on the team she is involved with and the people in the league have no objection to her playing in the league, there is no reason why she should not be able to play in that league. The Attorney General has taken a major step to repeal subsection 19(2) and allow an appeal to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Ms. Bryden: That route will not solve this year's problem, because there will still be legislation to pass and then a Human Rights Code application or complaint. The minister will recall the Sopinka Task Force on Equal Opportunity in Athletics in 1983 recommended that sports governing bodies which failed to provide equality of opportunity in sports activities might be subjected to the withholding of government grants as a sanction. While I understand the Ontario Hockey Association --
Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of that recommendation?
Ms. Bryden: I have one question about the Ontario Hockey Association, which has enforced the ban. I understand they do not receive direct government grants, but they do use publicly constructed and subsidized facilities. Does the minister think they should be allowed to continue to use those facilities while they retain rules that discriminate against qualified female players?
Hon. Mr. Eakins: I think the best approach is the one that is being taken at present; that is, to repeal the section in a democratic way and to allow an appeal to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I have met with some of the people involved. In her case, I think it is an issue for the people in the league to resolve. If there is no objection to her playing, by the league, her team, the coaches and the players in the league, I see no reason why on that basis they should not be able to solve it themselves. I support the Attorney General in the repeal of this section. I could not say the facilities should not be used. It is an area they must try to resolve themselves. I am very understanding of the honourable member's question.
Mrs. Marland: I am encouraged by the interest of the New Democratic Party in this subject. The Progressive Conservative Party is having a seminar on October 26 and 27 to address the question of women in sports.
I would like to ask the minister whether he would have considered public input from the people who are actually involved prior to his making a decision to go ahead with the amendment. Obviously, the need for the question to be addressed is before this government, but it is rather interesting that it is our party that has taken the initiative to find out whether the women in sports want the amendment. We are going to be very interested in hearing the results.
Hon. Mr. Eakins: This is simply an opportunity to allow an appeal to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It does not state what the decision of the commission is going to be; that is up to the commission. We feel an opportunity should be available for anyone to appeal to the commission, and that is what we are doing. We are allowing an appeal rather than an exemption. I support the Attorney General on that.
DISASTER RELIEF
Mr. Rowe: My question was to the Premier, but I assume he is out tuning up his voice to repay his debt. I shall direct my question to the Treasurer.
In May, as we all know, central Ontario was devastated by a tornado. Lives were lost and property was damaged. The previous government pledged to match relief donations on a three-to-one basis. On June 6 and July 5, the present Premier promised to honour that pledge. To date, more than $7.5 million has been raised privately, but this government has contributed $2 million. Is this another broken promise?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The policy is as the honourable member has stated it. I understand that among the rebuilding in the area is the Barrie Raceway, which was opened a couple of days ago after the devastation of the tornado.
The actual funding on a three-to-one basis goes forward, to the extent that funds are required to meet applications from the people who were injured or whose property was damaged, when the bills are approved by the local committee. I understand there are ample funds for that purpose.
Mr. Rowe: The government is committed to match on a three-to-one basis. We did not put any strings on it. Service clubs and business organizations have been calling my constituency office to say this government is not living up to its commitment; they are not going to put up any more of their money. Should I tell my constituents this is another broken promise; that this government does not intend to put up three-to-one?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can assure the member this government will live up to this promise as well as to all others. We must be very grateful for the generosity of the citizens in the member's community and elsewhere across the province, including members of this House, who contributed of their own free will and accord the dollars to assist in the rebuilding. The province agreed to contribute three-to-one to the extent that bills approved by the committee would be paid; that is what we have undertaken to do.
USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: This may be in conflict with the privileges of other members of the House, but I wish you would become much less lenient in question period with preambles and long-winded questions, adding along with them some of the answers, and would start to exercise your power in respect of those who are on the list for questions but who are not going to get a chance.
Mr. Speaker: I will not make any comment but I will note it in the record.
Hon. Mr. Sorbara: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Referring back to the antics of about half an hour ago when the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) was ejected, your reference was to the fact he had accused the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of misleading the House. I think if we go over his remarks, he said both the Premier and I had misled the House.
Mr. Speaker: I will check that out.
PETITIONS
ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Mr. Brandt: I have a petition signed by 245 individuals in Sarnia and the surrounding area.
"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:
"Whereas it is the sincere expectation of more than 500,000 students and staff of the separate school system of Ontario and nearly four million separate school supporters in the province of Ontario; and
"Whereas it was clearly the intent of our forefathers to treat both sectors of our common school system equally; and
"Whereas this intent is evident in successive acts of the Legislature since 1841; and
"Whereas the rights of separate school supporters are now protected under the Constitution of Canada; and
"Whereas deviation from past practice has occurred within the last 20 years, whereby trustees of the nondenominational sector of the common school system have been given the right to administer secondary education; and
"Whereas similar rights have not been granted to the trustees of the separate school sector; and
"Whereas the then Premier, the Honourable William Davis, on June 12, 1984, informed the Legislature that it was the intent of his government to empower Roman Catholic separate school boards to operate secondary schools for secondary students, commencing September 1, 1985; and
"Whereas this intent was unanimously supported by all parties in the House;
"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system without delay in order that it can be applied on September 1, 1985.
"We further petition that this legislation protect the historic rights of Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of their separate schools."
Mr. G. I. Miller: This morning, I have two petitions. One reads exactly the same as the one read into the record by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt). I will not read it in full.
"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement without delay the policy on the funding of the completion of the separate school system in order that it can be applied on September 1, 1985.
"We further petition that this Legislature protect the historic rights of Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of their separate schools."
It is signed by Donald O. O'Rourke, Grand Knight of Father J. M. Fogarty's Council 8480, from Exeter, Ontario, dated September 5, 1985.
The second petition, signed by 28 people, is 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:
"Whereas the proposed extension of funding of secondary education will significantly change the character and delivery of secondary education throughout Ontario, reducing the density of students and the variety of educational program offerings; and
"Whereas the decision to extend public funding to Roman Catholic separate secondary schools will have been made without the benefit of public input, legislative debate and in-depth studies of the potential impact of such a change in policy; and
"Whereas the necessary changes in legislation and regulations will be found to be more responsible, the subjects subjected to greater consideration and evaluation than is possible before the commencement of the 1985-86 school year; and
"Whereas the required program and accommodation modifications will require more planning time than is available prior to September 1985; and
"Whereas any legislation that is inconsistent with the Constitution is to the extent of this inconsistency of no force or effect,
"We petition the Ontario Legislature to delay implementation of the proposed separate secondary school funding until appropriate constitutional and acceptable legislation is in place."
The petition is from Frank Falconer of RR5, Clinton, Ontario.
Mr. Barlow: I have a petition signed by 19 residents of Cambridge.
"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:
"Whereas it was the sincere expectation of more than 500,000 students and staff of the separate school system of Ontario and nearly four million separate school supporters in the province of Ontario; and
"Whereas it was clearly the intent of our forefathers to treat both sectors of our common school system equally; and
"Whereas this intent is evident in successive acts of the Legislature since 1841; and
"Whereas the rights of separate school supporters are now protected under the Constitution of Canada; and
"Whereas deviation from past practice has occurred within the last 20 years, whereby trustees of the nondenominational sector of the common school system have been given the right to administer secondary education; and
"Whereas similar rights have not been granted to the trustees of the separate school sector; and "Whereas the then Premier, the Honourable William Davis, on June 12, 1984, informed the Legislature that it was the intent of his government to empower Roman Catholic separate school boards to operate secondary schools for secondary school students commencing September 1, 1985; and
"Whereas this intent was unanimously supported by all parties in the House;
"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system without delay in order that it can be applied on September 1, 1985.
"We further petition that this legislation protect the historic rights of Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of their separate schools."
Mr. Philip: I beg leave to introduce a petition signed by 586 constituents of the riding of Etobicoke.
"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:
"Whereas Bill 30, extending public funding to Catholic high schools up to and including grade 13, has now passed second reading in the Legislature, we petition that this legislation to fund a complete separate school system be implemented without delay and that it be applied as of December 1, 1985."
11:20 a.m.
AMALGAMATION OF TOWNSHIPS
Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 106 people from Striker and Cobden townships.
"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître):
"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:
"Whereas we understand the province of Ontario, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and the incorporated town of Blind River are presently negotiating the amalgamation of the above noted areas," Striker township and Cobden township, "to be completed in the very near future; and
"Whereas the incorporated town of Blind River is heavily burdened with substantial tax deficits and may cause unfair and substantial increases in property taxes in our areas without the increase and benefit of any services that the residents of the above noted areas now receive; and
"Whereas there is the strong possibility of a new municipality being created by the division of the incorporated township of North Shore, which may be able to offer equal services or the necessary service to our area without the burden of a heavy tax deficit to the above noted residents;
"Therefore, we request that all efforts now being made to amalgamate the incorporated town of Blind River and the unorganized township of Striker, and more specifically the subdivisions of Forest Glen, Birchwood Circle and Huron Estates, be delayed until a final decision is made as to the creation of the new municipality for North Shore and the residents and their representatives of the above noted unorganized area be given an opportunity to investigate and compare the benefits of joining either of the above noted municipalities."
TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE
Mr. Reycraft: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the members of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, signed by approximately 800 constituents of Wellington county, which reads as follows:
"We, the high school students and concerned citizens, protest the Wellington county high school teachers' strike. We are not taking sides. However, the students have a right to an education and we petition the government to do everything in its power to help them get back to school before the strike jeopardizes their school year and credits. Every day wasted not talking is another day that the students have to pay for. The students should not be caught in the middle."
This is respectfully submitted.
11:30 a.m.
MOTION
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS
Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the following substitutions be made on the standing and select committees: on the standing committee on members' services, Mr. Poirier for Mr. Polsinelli; on the standing committee on regulations and private bills, Mr. McGuigan for Mr. Bossy, Mr. Haggerty for Mr. McKessock; on the standing committee on resources development, Mr. Rowe for Mr. Bernier, Mr. D. W. Smith for Mr. G. I. Miller, Mr. McGuigan for Mr. Sargent, and Mr. Gordon to be added; on the standing committee on social development, Mr. Epp for Mr. Henderson, Mr. G. I. Miller for Mr. D. W. Smith, Mr. Bernier for Mr. Timbrell; on the select committee on economic affairs, Mr. Hennessy for Mr. Bennett, Mr. McCague for Miss Stephenson; on the select committee on health, Miss Stephenson for Mr. Pope, and Mr. Cousens to be added.
Motion agreed to.
POLLS
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Pursuant to government policy announced Tuesday of this week, I have tabled additional polls on behalf of the government. They have been put upon the table, delivered to the opposition leaders and distributed as indicated in my announcement on Tuesday.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
INTERIM SUPPLY
Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eakins, resolution 9: That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing November 1, 1985, and ending December 31, 1985, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The members are aware that interim supply is routine under our system of financing the business of government. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who is just coming in looking like he is loaded for bear, would be aware that without the passage of this motion most transfer payments, including payments to hospitals, doctors, municipalities, family benefits recipients, suppliers of accounts and civil servants' salaries, cannot be paid.
We have undertaken to bring the interim supply motion in a bit earlier than usual since the government has sufficient funds to pay these bills until the end of the month. As well, it is expected the budget will be brought in next week and there will be additional debate on general economic matters at that time.
I know the honourable members will feel free to talk on any subjects that interest them. It may be an appropriate time, although it is a bit late, to provide advice to the Treasurer on what he might do in the next few days. In my opinion, all those things would be in order and of interest and in every way relevant.
I also want to say that this procedure of interim supply is a good one. The procedure many years ago was that the government would bring in a routine motion, probably at the time of the introduction of the budget and the tabling of the estimates, approving interim supply for the whole fiscal year. I can remember that in our ignorance in both opposition parties the bill was often carried without objection or any comment whatsoever.
It was not an irresponsible passage on the nod, as we say, because there was ample opportunity then, as there is now, for detailed discussion of the expenditure estimates during the course of the fiscal year. However, we all know that most of the money has been disbursed when the supply bills finally come before the House, which gives the general approval of the Legislature for the total expenditure, now approaching $30 billion. There certainly is a feeling by the members of the House that a vote at that time tends to be somewhat irrelevant.
Mr. Martel: Totally.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Let us say completely irrelevant. The idea of not having a blanket interim supply but one that is for a period of two, three or four months, depending usually on the will of the opposition parties in that regard, is a good process. It is a vehicle for all members of the House to express their views to the financial officers of the government, as well as in the general budgetary debate.
Expenditures made to date in this fiscal year amount to $15.2 billion. The first part of that, about $7.25 billion, was made under the authority of Lieutenant Governor's special warrants; that is in the period from April 1 to June 30. Since that time we have had the authority of interim supply passed before June 30, and the expenditures made in that period amount to almost $8 billion. The amount covered in the two months of this motion is expected to be about $4.5 billion.
I can assure honourable members that my colleagues and I will listen to their comments with careful attention as long as they do not last for more than about an hour. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that we have other important public business before the House, and the sooner we get this over the sooner I can get back to the farm.
With these few comments, I am confident of the support of members on all sides after they have had their say.
Mr. McCague: I rise to take part in the discussion of this motion and I very much appreciate the fact the Treasurer has seen fit to lay out the groundwork for the discussion on the basis of the discussions he has led for a great number of years on behalf of his party. It is interesting to see him in the position of interim supply, something he has criticized for a great number of years, although today he was quite complimentary. I look forward to the budget he will be bringing to us next week. I heard, I think correctly, the Treasurer expects to bring in a budget next week.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I announced there would be one.
Mr. McCague: I heard that, too.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I also said, "God willing." Who knows when lightning is going to strike?
Mr. McCague: I hope it does not strike the people of Ontario when the Treasurer announces his budget. However, the Treasurer is a friend and a colleague whom we have all respected in the past. I hope we still feel the same way come next Thursday at five o'clock. I am sure he has the best interests of the people of Ontario at heart, with a little sprinkling of political undertakings in there.
The Treasurer will be tabling the first budget introduced by a Liberal government in about four decades. I suspect the honourable member has been waiting for this moment for all of the 23 years he has served in this assembly. Neither I nor my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus have any intention of delaying the minister's opportunity to have his moment in the sun, and we will be voting in support of the interim supply motion.
We in the official opposition are looking forward with great anticipation to this first Liberal budget. Perhaps this is because we are confident that the first Liberal budget will guarantee that it will be the last Liberal budget for another 40 years. Perhaps it is because we are going to enjoy seeing how the Treasurer balances his own commitment to fiscal conservatism with the free-spending campaign platform of his own party and the commitments made in that famous accord with the New Democratic Party.
11:40 a.m.
Some have suggested the first Liberal budget will be little more than a bill that will tally up the costs of the items on the Liberal-NDP accord and present it to the people of Ontario for payment. I have more confidence in the Treasurer than that. I do not think the Treasurer is going to undermine the fiscal integrity and stability of this province simply to satisfy the ambitions of the third party. The Treasurer, as he has often demonstrated in his role as critic, is made of sterner material.
I suspect the Treasurer is very well aware of who is the puppetmaster and who is the puppet in the relationship between his government and the New Democrats. It is for this reason the members of the third party, perhaps more than ever, and we in the official opposition are anxiously awaiting the Treasurer's first budget. Certainly, that budget will indicate to them whether they have been successful in pulling the Treasurer's strings. It will certainly serve to indicate to them just how much the government thinks their support is worth, just how meaningful and important their so-called agenda for reform really is.
We are all aware, as the Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) never cease to remind us, that their agreement with the NDP calls for programs and policies to be pursued within a framework of fiscal responsibility. The Treasurer's budget will undoubtedly show us how it is possible for fiscally irresponsible programs to be implemented in a fiscally responsible way. The budget will no doubt also demonstrate again that what we in this party mean by fiscal responsibility and what the Liberals and New Democrats mean by fiscal responsibility are quite different things. The budget will certainly show us just what type of Treasurer the province has in the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.
Almost a year ago to the day the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk described for this House the type of Treasurer he believed this province needed. We needed, he said, a very tough, independent and dedicated Treasurer, a person who holds himself somewhat independent from his colleagues in the cabinet.
What this province does not need is a Treasurer hostage to a party that, as one of my friends has said, believes that because two thirds of the people did not vote Liberal and two thirds of the people did not vote Tory, then four thirds of the people must have voted NDP. It is my hope the Treasurer's budget will show him to be dedicated, independent-minded and committed to maintaining the economic health of this province.
In voting interim supply, this House is giving the government the authority it requires to pay its civil servants and to make other necessary payments during the last two months of 1985, a year in which we not only have witnessed some very interesting and historic political developments in our province, but have also experienced continued economic and employment growth.
Some of my friends in caucus have suggested to me that in voting interim supply this House is really approving payment of the first instalment of the dowry the government has agreed to pay to the third party in their marriage of convenience. I do not share this view. I believe that in voting interim supply we in the Progressive Conservative Party are making a responsible effort to ensure the province runs as smoothly as possible during the next few months as the Liberal government tries to implement its budget and honour its many campaign promises. We want the day-to-day business of government to proceed normally as the honeymoon between our friends ends and as the Liberal Party demonstrates the reasons it has not occupied the government benches in some 40 years.
I think it is important for the government to know it will have the funds available to pay the civil servants and to implement and deliver its many campaign promises, programs and accord commitments. For example, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) should be assured he will be able to pay those people on the interministerial working groups looking at the issues of equal pay for work of equal value.
I appreciate that under the terms of the government agreement with the New Democratic Party this issue was supposed to be resolved in the first session of this assembly. We were supposed to debate legislation that would implement equal pay for work of equal value in both the public and private sectors. Apparently, there is some question as to when this House will even see that legislation.
I am sure it will come as a relief to our new Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) to know he will be able to pay his staff to administer the $100-million program his party promised to allocate immediately for the construction of co-operative, municipal nonprofit and private rental housing. I am certain it was only the minister's concern about his ability to pay his staff that has delayed the announcement of this priority program. No doubt that $100-million program for housing will figure prominently in the budget of the Treasurer.
I also hope that in the last two months of 1985 the government will deliver on its promise to spend $466 million this year on job creation programs. As I am sure the members will recall, the Premier told the people of this province in the spring election that his employment programs would create a minimum of 72,000 new full-time jobs without increasing the size of the deficit.
I would not want the Liberal government of Ontario to be preoccupied with any problems of supply as it moves to honour its campaign promises to phase out Ontario health insurance plan premiums; nor do I want the Treasurer to be bothered with supply problems during his last week for reviewing the budget. The Treasurer has more weighty and pressing questions he might wish to address by way of last-minute revisions to his budget.
The Treasurer may not have determined yet whether he can deliver on his party's promise to provide $192 million in sales tax breaks. He may wish to review his party's commitments to double the child tax credit, to establish a $200-million rural road improvement fund, to create a $30-million environmental superfund and a host of other measures that I estimate will cost a total of $1.5 billion to implement in the first year.
I am sure the Treasurer would prefer to consider the possibility of implementing some of the ideas he put before this House as critic, rather than worry about the question of interim supply. Last October, in debating interim supply, one of the members suggested the Treasurer should embark on a public finance scheme, using Ontario Hydro bonds. The member suggested the Treasurer should use his initiative to see that Hydro bonds, which are backed by the province, be made available in reasonably small denominations in a convenient way to investors in Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Good idea.
Mr. McCague: It was then, at least; we will see next Thursday. I believe the member recommended the bonds be sold through the Province of Ontario Savings Office. It will be interesting to see whether the member, now that he is the Treasurer, will use the initiative of his office to bring this plan to fruition. I was somewhat surprised to hear the member recommend that investors in the province be given the opportunity to purchase bonds backed by the province.
11:50 a.m.
Last year the member's leader insinuated that Ontario would not be able to honour its debt on its nonpublic borrowing or would only be able to do so by raising taxes. This indicates to me that the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) thinks the province is a very poor credit risk. However, the Liberal Party has evidently changed its tune on this matter. The Treasurer has assured us that, based on the benchmarks of strength, diversity and growth in our economy, our credit worthiness is sound. I think we in the Progressive Conservative Party can take some credit for that situation; however, it is the current Treasurer who will determine how long our credit worthiness remains sound.
Given that his so-called economic statement resulted in the province being placed on credit watch with negative implications, I am not optimistic about the impact his first fall budget will have on our credit worthiness as reflected in our credit rating. It is for that reason I would urge him, if he is going to do so at all, to proceed quickly with his Hydro bond idea.
In his remarks during the interim supply debate of October 1984, the present Treasurer spoke quite forcefully of the need to protect the taxpayer of Ontario from the expense of what is referred to as double dipping. He was not the Treasurer then, but he said double dipping should not be permitted at that time or any other at any level of government. He said the time had come to do something constructive about it and say, "From now on, anybody who works for the government does not get a pension until he ceases his work subject to direct payment."
I do not know if the Treasurer remains interested in this topic. What level of support for corrective measures exists among his colleagues in cabinet? It occurred to me the executive assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) once graced these chambers as the representative from the riding of Halton-Burlington. Perhaps the Treasurer could enlighten us as to whether our former colleague now enjoys the benefits of double dipping and indicate to us whether his government has any intention of addressing this issue.
Over the next few months, we will also be watching to see whether the Treasurer uses his initiative and the influence of his office to deal with the concerns he expressed a year ago about election finances. At that time, he was passionate in his condemnation of tollgating by the governing party.
The member made specific reference to charges that this party ran a tollgate in the mid-1970s. He said, "Fund-raisers at the time, with the knowledge if not the consent of the Premier, were allowing huge amounts of money to go into the coffers of the Progressive Conservative Party."
In reference to members of the executive council, the member observed: "I know these people. Being influential ministers, they simply have to half-close one eye and crook one finger and the money comes firehosing out of all the business establishments that in the past have done business with the government and in the future hope to do business with the government."
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I understand that is down to a trickle now.
Mr. McCague: I see. Is there a leak further up in the hose?
The member warned the House, "We have to be aware of this." How right he was. Since it assumed office, the activities of his own party have proved the Treasurer to be quite a prophet. They have also proved that his concern for this type of activity is not shared by his friends on the government benches.
The party which promises free and open government, without walls or barriers, was very quick to put up the tollgate. Business people in the province have been invited to join the élite Liberal economic advisory forum. Membership costs a mere $1,000. The Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan) invited advertising agencies to breakfast to explain how government advertising contracts would be awarded in the future. It cost these firms a mere $250 to learn how this government was planning to conduct its business. To my knowledge, that money was not contributed to the general revenue fund, even though it was public business being peddled, but to the coffers of the Ontario Liberal Party.
These are but a few of the recent examples of free and open government as practised by a party that would dearly love everyone to believe it is above that sort of crass politicking. Now it appears that what they found so reprehensible in others is quite acceptable when practised by themselves.
No doubt the Treasurer will want to reflect on this matter during the coming months. We can safely say that while we do not know what impact the ascension to power of the Liberal government will have on the provincial Treasury, its impact on the treasury of the Ontario Liberal Party has been most salutory.
If the Liberal government proves to be as effective at getting money from the taxpayers as it has been at getting money from business and interest groups, I can only suggest that we all keep a tight grip on our wallets. The New Democratic Party must be rather dismayed to find it is helping to support Liberal fund-raising efforts. This is somewhat akin to helping to pay the hit man who has a contract on one's political life.
The Treasurer may be preoccupied with the problems of supply at this time when more pressing matters demand his attention. The Treasurer may have already decided which of his party campaign promises and accord commitments will be postponed and delayed. He may have already decided that he cannot follow through on his party's promises of sales tax breaks, OHIP phase-out, etc.
Recent public announcements by the Treasurer and the Premier have warned of tax increases and a larger deficit. This is a different tune from the one the Treasurer was singing in June when he said, "I am not going to raise taxes." The Treasurer has already warned that he may not be able to deliver on some of his promises.
Both the Treasurer and the Premier have been very busy over the summer trying to ensure they do not have to take the blame for their failure to honour their commitments in regard to any increase in taxes, a higher deficit or any loss of the triple-A credit rating. They have been running around the province doing their Mother Hubbard act. They went to the cupboard and they found it bare.
All of this is simply part of the Liberal government's blame game strategy through which they hope to make the former administration the fall guy for their own inadequacies. The blame game is an effort on their part to avoid having to admit that the promises and commitments they made during the last campaign were irresponsible, an effort to distract attention from the fact that, as this party told the people during the last campaign, Ontario cannot afford a Grit government.
The Liberal government does not want to acknowledge that we were right when we said their promises and their use of the deficit as a creative tool would only result in higher taxes, more debt and a bigger deficit. That type of behaviour has become part of the ritual on the initiation of any new government. The public will give it the degree of credibility it deserves.
All of us appreciate that the writing of a budget for a province the size of ours is a difficult and demanding task. None of us in this House envies the Treasurer his job. At the same time, I suspect many of us recognize that the Treasurer of Ontario is the envy of his counterparts in other Canadian jurisdictions.
The new Treasurer and his colleagues have assumed responsibility for a province with a vibrant and dynamic private sector and a responsible and well-balanced public sector. They have assumed responsibility for a province which in the last two years has led this nation in employment and economic growth and which will likely do so again this year. Last year our economy grew by six per cent in real terms, well above the budget projection of 4.7 per cent and considerably better than the national growth rate.
12 noon
The current Treasurer told us in July he expects real economic growth of 4.8 per cent, a growth rate substantially better than real growth rates of between 3.1 per cent and 3.3 per cent projected for the nation. This economic growth was accompanied by employment growth. In his 1985 financial report the Treasurer noted that in the last fiscal year employment in Ontario increased by 4.5 per cent. In the last calendar year average actual employment levels in Ontario increased by 3.6 per cent, a rate of increase double that experienced in the rest of Canada.
Youth unemployment levels have also dropped. However, all parties recognize that the youth employment problem is far from solved. On that point, I would note we are still waiting for the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) to announce the major youth employment and training initiatives the Premier promised would be implemented before the end of summer.
On the public sector side, as my colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) reported in June, in 1984-85, for the second consecutive fiscal year the former Progressive Conservative government of Ontario had been able to achieve significant in-year and year-over-year reductions in the deficit.
Members may recall that when the member for York Mills reported the deficit for the last fiscal year at $1.7 billion, which was $337 million lower than the budget plan and $587 million lower than the 1983-84 deficit, the members of the Liberal Party and of the New Democratic Party were quick to question the accuracy of her figures. I would have thought those doubts would have been laid to rest when the Liberal Treasurer's own economic report confirmed that the deficit was indeed $1.7 billion. Apparently that was an incorrect assumption on my part.
The Premier, at least, continues to evidence some confusion about the size of the deficit, and the Treasurer has done the groundwork to allow him to play some political games with the deficit numbers. The Premier's confusion may be caused by the fact that he and his colleagues are having some difficulty finding a way to transform the real deficit into a politically expedient deficit.
For his part, the Treasurer has already set up the straw man that will give him the option of increasing the deficit in this fiscal year while claiming to have achieved a deficit reduction. In his July economic statement, the Treasurer told us that on the basis of the expenditure estimates of the former government, the provincial deficit in fiscal year 1985-86 would likely have been $2.6 billion. The Treasurer told the House that a deficit of that size would put the triple-A rating in jeopardy.
The Treasurer now has positioned himself to bring in a budget with a deficit of about $2.2 billion. That deficit would represent a $500-million increase over last year's deficit, but the Treasurer will claim he has cut this year's deficit by $400 million. The Treasurer's ploy will depend on the assumption that the people of this province cannot distinguish between the real figures and the imaginary ones. It is the real deficit the Treasurer's budget will produce, and not the fiction of a deficit of some budget never presented to this House, that will put the triple-A rating in jeopardy and increase the cost of government to the people of Ontario.
It is not the expenditure plans of the former government that will be presented in this year's budget. The official opposition party does not dictate the government's budgetary priorities, though it may be that the third party will. As the Liberal Treasurer has told this House, the spending plans of his government will not reflect Tory priorities but will be based on the statement made by the new Premier on the program he put before this House.
As for the triple-A rating, which the Treasurer tells us is in jeopardy and the Premier tells us is already lost, I simply say that Progressive Conservative governments maintained the triple-A rating through the most severe international recession since the 1930s. Progressive Conservative governments maintained the rating during a period of high unemployment, record deficits and negligible economic growth.
We now have a Liberal government that tells us the triple-A rating is in jeopardy in the third year of strong and sustained economic and employment growth and at a time when the former government had achieved significant reductions in the provincial deficit. If this government cannot maintain the triple-A rating under the best economic conditions this province has enjoyed in this decade, what type of management can we expect from it if we experience more difficult times?
In June, my colleague the member for York Mills described the economic performance of our province over the past year as remarkable. As my colleague noted at that time, the budgetary and economic policies of the government and its commitment to fiscal restraint have been an underlying source of strength and security in sustaining Ontario's economic recovery.
The Treasurer does not need me to tell him that it is his responsibility to continue that remarkable record of growth or that it is his responsibility to enhance the climate of confidence and provide a stable, fiscal environment to strengthen our economic base and enable us to take advantage of new opportunities. We will be watching closely to see how the Treasurer discharges those heavy responsibilities and how he elects to spend the taxpayers' money.
In the course of my remarks this afternoon, I would have preferred to have been able to comment on some of the important economic initiatives and programs of this new government. However, because to this point the government has shown itself to be more interested in public relations than in public policy and more concerned with developing political alibis than with implementing programs, there is very little we can say on that score.
The time draws near, though, when this new administration will have to put aside its preoccupation with postering and get on with the business of government. I suspect that when they make that transition, they will find it was much easier to govern from the opposition benches. No doubt the Treasurer already has come to appreciate the truth of the old saying that all games are easier to kibitz than they are to play.
I look forward to debating the budget with the Treasurer in this House, after he has given us a better idea of how he will spend the money he has asked us to vote today.
Mr. Laughren: I rise to support this supply motion. How could I do otherwise, given the context in which the Treasurer put it when he introduced it earlier today?
Although I support it, I do have some concerns about this government's economic priorities. There are a number of things swirling around out there that I find disquieting. There is the Premier himself with his musings about Can-Car, for example, which are not constructive. When the Treasurer is getting the fiscal affairs of the province under control, perhaps he could include the Premier's musings at the same time in that exercise of control.
I look at what has happened with our parks system. I do not want to dwell on that today, except to say the government seems to be allowing the bureaucracy to continue to make plans about privatizing our provincial parks at the same time that it announces there is a pause in that. The minister has asked the Ontario Provincial Parks Council to conduct hearings across the province to determine whether the privatization of those parks should continue, while the bureacracy internally is churning out material saying, "These are the parks that could be privatized in the next two years." It is as though nothing had changed. That is something the government has not dealt with at this point and needs to.
This morning, the Minister of Natural Resources said we were going to have an independent audit of our forests. I am going to have to check my thesaurus to remind myself of what the word "independent" means and perhaps send a copy to the minister. I have never seen such innocence in all my life as that displayed by the Minister of Natural Resources.
Mr. Wildman: A nice word would be naiveté.
12:10 p.m.
Mr. Laughren: The naiveté of the Minister of Natural Resources. I tried to say to the minister during question period that we know full well the numbers that MNR has been churning out in the past few years are simply not appropriate.
I have a letter from the former deputy minister which says, "We are not going to give you those numbers everybody has been using for the last number of years any more because they are misleading, to say the least." Those were his words. Yet those are the same numbers, churned out by the same people in the ministry, which the minister is going to turn over to the new, independent auditor of our forests. It is not a question of whether the auditor is independent himself, but rather it is a question of the numbers he will have to work with to come up with any kind of conclusion.
When the audit was made part of the accord between this party and the government, it was agreed it would be an independent audit. I appreciate the fact that an audit is being made. Heaven knows, the former government would not have conducted an independent audit if it had remained in power another 42 years. It was too defensive about it. Its record on regeneration of our forests was on the line. It would never have allowed an independent audit. It would not have mattered who was the minister or who was the Premier; that simply would not have happened.
Everybody who comments on Ontario's forests basically comes to the same conclusion. That is why I am so offended by the minister saying the numbers are going to be provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Mr. Fahlgren, the erstwhile commissioner of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment, claimed the resources inventory tends to overestimate actual timber volumes and does not contain information that permits estimates of the capacity of forest land to regenerate if the forest is cut. He also said the annual allowable cuts are artificially high. He recommended an inspection because he recognized that "estimates of timber supply have political ramifications."
This spanking new government has no reason to protect the numbers; or no reason to protect the former regime or the forestry industry in what they have done to the forests. Now is the time to get it out in the open. If this government lasts any number of years it will become defensive about what is going on in the forests; so now is the time to come clean and to have a truly independent audit.
As a matter of fact, a forester from the Nipigon area who is now retired, by the name of Mr. Marek, did a report for the former Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), on silviculture treatment. He stated, "The district staff quite casually admitted the situation in the bush was quite different from the situation in the records." That is pretty devastating stuff, yet these are the records that are going to be fumed over to the new provincial forestry auditor.
In 1983-84, I was trying to learn a bit about forestry when I became this party's critic. I was digging in the files for numbers and writing to the ministry to try to put together a package of information. This party formed a task force, which went across the province and produced a report. My colleagues and I worked very hard in putting together a report on our forestry, and we feel good about that report.
In the middle of all this, as we were generating some heat around the issue, the Ministry of Natural Resources wrote to me. When I asked it specifically what amount of land was not being regenerated adequately, it had sent me figures earlier that said 32 per cent of the cut-over land was not available for regeneration. That was in 1981-82. In 1984, someone in the ministry wrote back and told me all land was available for regeneration. Somehow it went from 32 per cent not being available for regeneration to all of it being available. What kind of nonsense is that? That is what Mr. Fahlgren means when he says there are political ramifications attached to the numbers in forestry.
By the way, the ministry kept promising it was going to provide me with a new way of determining what kind of regeneration there was in the forests, but it never did. To this day, I have not received it.
Those are the people who are going to provide the information which the auditor of our forests is going to work with. The minister says: "Do not be worried. The auditor will have authority to do more than that if he wants to. He does not have to sit in the Whitney Block and pore over the numbers." I do not know whether the minister has been up north in January, February, March, April or even May, but it is very difficult to do an audit on the ground in northern Ontario at that time. It simply cannot be done, yet he is supposed to report by July 1986. There are contradictions in what the minister is saying.
Mr. Callahan: Count them from the sky when the leaves are gone.
Mr. Wildman: You have the wrong kind of trees.
Mr. Laughren: That is right. The leaves do not fall off. I remind the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) that the needles stay on the trees during the wintertime.
That is bothering me about the audit, even though, as I said at the beginning, at least an audit is being done. If we are going to have an audit, for heaven's sake let us have a first-class audit. Let us take the politics out of regeneration figures once and for all in Ontario. What have we accomplished if we establish an audit, complete the audit and the numbers are suspect yet again? As a new government, what has it gained? I think it has made a political error in judgement, and I do not understand why it would do that.
We are not asking for something impossible. The principle has been established that the government is prepared to establish an audit, and it is appointing an auditor. All I am asking is that they do it up right, that they do it properly, that they make it a first-class audit so we know what is out there. Then the government will not have to listen to me year after year saying the numbers cannot be verified.
Before I move on, another thing about the forests has to do with environmental assessment. I have believed for a long time that forestry projects should not be exempt from the Environmental Assessment Act. I am not saying that everything that goes on in the forests needs to be subjected to environmental assessment, but what this government apparently is going to do is establish a class environmental assessment that will apply to all activities in the forest and, regardless of the kind of site, the industry will have to comply with that.
Let me remind the House of what Mr. Fahlgren said. Mr. Fahlgren spent a great deal of time dealing with forestry. By the way, if anyone thinks I am hard on the Ministry of Natural Resources, he should read Mr. Fahlgren's report; he is quite scathing in his remarks about the Ministry of Natural Resources. Mr. Fahlgren states the following on environmental assessment:
"How can one propose a class or general assessment of a cutting method when its environmental effects are most likely to be local and specific in nature, dependent on soil attributes and thickness, ground cover, topography, slopes, drainage patterns, watercourses and climate, to name some of the probable operative factors? What must first occur are actual assessments under the Environmental Assessment Act for proposed cutting methods for a representative variety of forest areas."
Mr. Fahlgren does not say it should be done for every project but "for a representative variety of forest areas." I can support that. There would have to be some debate over precisely what that meant, but nobody is trying to grind the system to a halt, which I heard a senior MNR person say the other day when I asked about doing site-specific environmental assessments. The response I got was, "That would grind everything to a halt, because there are 120 management units in the province, and we would not want to do that." I do not know of anyone who wants to grind forestry activities to a halt.
12:20 p.m.
Anyway, that is what is bothering me about the minister's statement on the audit. I intend to sit down with the auditor when he comes to town and talk to him about my fears and give him a copy of our report on forestry, which I think still stands up to scrutiny, and hope for the best. I will do anything I can to help, but I wish the minister had planned the audit a little differently and instructed the auditor somewhat differently. It does need a multidisciplinary approach; it does not need a professional forester to sit in the Whitney Block and go over the numbers.
I want to talk for a moment about a problem that is bothering me more and more, and not only me but the other northern members of my caucus; that is the deindustrialization of northern Ontario. I do not know of a phrase that describes it better. As the mining industry becomes increasingly mechanized, the number of people in the industry declines and the tax base of communities declines. As the mills are required to haul wood farther away from the site, communities suffer again. It is happening fast, and there are enormous social and economic costs attached to deindustrialization.
Sudbury is a good example. I do not want to dwell solely on Sudbury, but to use it as an example. I know that the problems in Sault Ste Marie, for example, are very serious in terms of unemployment and welfare case loads. A couple of weeks ago, the chairman of the regional municipality of Sudbury and a couple of his senior people met with the member for Sudbury East and myself and with the Treasurer, in the Tatter's opulent boardroom, about some of the problems.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Opulent? It is stark.
Mr. Laughren: The Treasurer has not been to my office lately; if he thinks his is stark, mine is barren.
The people from the regional municipality of Sudbury put together what I thought was a very good case for provincial intervention in order to resolve some of the problems. I would like to put some of their points on the record, particularly as some of the new members of the chamber have not experienced the kind of problems we have in northern Ontario.
For example, when we look at the welfare case load between 1980 and now, we find it has gone from about 2,000 to 3,200 in the community. Then there is the whole question of criminal occurrences. Most people now accept the fact that when the economy is in trouble there is more criminal activity. The number of criminal occurrences in Sudbury went from 11,000 in 1980 to 14,000 in 1985. Those are large percentage increases.
One thing that is happening with the increase in the welfare load is that a lot of the myths about welfare are being dispelled. Professor Lewko from Laurentian University did a full study and came up with the following findings about people who are participating in the Youth Corps program in Sudbury.
Youth have a positive attitude towards earning their own way. They hold a very negative view of unemployment as undesirable and even shameful. They feel that getting a job is beyond their control. They feel that job security and salary are viewed as more important than other job features. Those are four general conclusions that Dr. Lewko came to.
It seems to me, if we do not do something about it, if we have a large number of young people being unemployed with those kinds of attitudes, we are going to end up with a very cynical group of people in the years to come. It behooves all of us to try to do what we can.
Who are the unemployed? These figures are from the same study of welfare recipients who went on to the Youth Corps program: 80 per cent of the group came from blue-collar families with parents having less than secondary school education; 74 per cent had fathers who had never been unemployed; 20 per cent of males and 34 per cent of females had never held a paid job since leaving school.
I hope and trust the Treasurer will bring in a program dealing with youth who have never had a job since getting out of school. I very much hope this will be in his budget next Thursday.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Your people said that was not really at the top of the list for Sudbury.
Mr. Laughren: That is correct, but that does not mean that everything we can get will not help.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will try to give the member everything.
Mr. Laughren: That would be a change. The Sudbury community is changing. It is no longer the lunch-bucket, hard-hat kind of community most people envision it as being. It has changed in the last number of years. The heart of the community is still the mining industry, Inco and Falconbridge; but in 1971, which coincidentally was when I was elected -- I should not mention that; I will be blamed for the decline --
Hon. Mr. Nixon: If the shoe fits, wear it.
Mr. Laughren: I thought I would get that in before the Treasurer did.
Employment at the two major employers, Inco and Falconbridge, between 1971 and 1985 has gone down from 26,000 to 12,000. That is more than a 50 per cent drop, and it is going lower. It has not bottomed out yet, because layoffs in the neighbourhood of 1,200 have been announced by Inco, and 150, I believe, have been announced by Falconbridge; so those numbers are going to be even lower.
All this has had an effect on the prosperity of Sudbury. The regional municipality laid some interesting numbers before the Treasurer. In 1961 Sudbury was fifth in Canada in average yearly income; in 1979 we were 76th. In that 18-year period, Sudbury went from fifth to 76th in ranking of average yearly income in Canada.
Along with this, besides the welfare we have unemployment insurance benefits being paid out and in some cases it is truly remarkable to see the numbers. When they did a survey -- and they were prepared to put actual names on these numbers, so they are absolutely certain of their accuracy -- 46 per cent of the employable welfare clients in Sudbury were single males, 19 per cent were single females and 35 per cent were families. That is a scary number.
When we look at the age of the welfare recipient -- this is what the Treasurer was referring to a moment ago -- this worries us too, and it is why simply a youth job creation program is not enough for Sudbury. In the 14-to-19 age group there are 130 -- these are absolute numbers -- and in the 20-to-24 age group, 2,400. From age 25 to 44, which should be the age group where virtually everybody is employed, we had almost 5,600 unemployed. More than half of all the unemployed are between the ages of 25 and 44, and the heart of the community is that age group. When we think of the purchasing power, when we think of people buying homes and furniture and raising young families, this is the age group that is surely the heart of any community, and that is really worrisome.
12:30 p.m.
Another problem is that as the community changes and becomes more service oriented, different kinds of jobs are being created. For example, between 1971 and 1981, 125 new jobs were created for males and 10,500 were created for females. I will repeat those numbers because they are truly incredible. It is partly because of layoffs that occurred in 1977 and 1978, but the increase in employment for males between 1971 and 1981 was 125 and for females it was 10,500. Those are truly remarkable numbers.
The regional municipality laid five strategies for job creation before the Treasurer.
1. Request the provincial government to develop a community development program for northern Ontario for employable welfare clients to enable them to requalify for unemployment insurance benefits.
2. Request the federal government to change the Canadian job strategy to reflect regional disparity, and specifically to relax the criterion of 50 per cent private sector involvement in the job development program.
3. Request provincial and federal governments to allow a person on welfare funds to be utilized for community development projects.
4. Develop a local, integrated community strategy which will provide the unemployed with training and upgrading to meet future job requirements in the growth sectors of the regional economy.
5. The area municipalities should review the federal local employment assistance and development program and decide upon appropriate action.
The municipality is trying, but it has done so before. There are only so many times you can pick yourself up off the mat. The region needs help from the two senior levels of government. However, just as Sudbury has these kinds of problems so do other communities. I believe something must be done.
The Macdonald commission report stated we had to make a decision in this country. Mr Macdonald put it in a very stark way, for which I give him credit even though I disagree with his conclusions. I think he did us a service by saying as starkly as he did: "We simply must do something. We either must opt for free trade or we will have to have a planned economy."
Obviously, a planned economy was unacceptable to him; therefore, he held out the option of free trade. In his mind, it was almost the lesser of the evils so he opted for it. I think he is dead wrong and that at some point as a nation we will come to the conclusion that we really must have a planned economy, because an unplanned economy is the kind we have now.
We see it in spades in northern Ontario. We have the exploitation of resources, selling what we can to the highest bidder, and that is it. That is an unacceptable course for a country like Canada, a province like Ontario and a part of the province like the north. It is completely unacceptable. We simply must do something about these kinds of problems; welfare, unemployment, social destruction and despair.
Can we wait for the possible benefits of what Mr. Macdonald talks about with free trade? Can we sit idly by and hope that free trade will have a beneficial impact on the north, or do we have to do something that is positive and will attempt to bail us out of the problems in northern Ontario?
The planning that must be done must include the kind of service sector growth that is directed, such as has been done partly in northeastern Ontario with the medical referral centre for northeastern Ontario. That is good. That is the kind of planning that is required. However, we also must move in ways in which we have not moved before and start getting serious about replacing a lot of the imports that are now brought in from other parts of the world.
Mr. Haggerty: President Reagan talks free trade and the Congress and Senate go in the opposite direction, towards more protection.
Mr. Laughren: That is right. If you think Mr. Reagan is talking free trade for our advantage, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
There is also the whole question of further processing of the minerals that are in northern Ontario. We have talked about that for many years. There is the question of more tending of our forests. There are enormous job opportunities in tending our forests properly.
I do not want to be unfairly parochial, but I do not believe this Legislature as a whole knows or understands the north. There are members who do. The government is in a dilemma because it has one member from northern Ontario who is a minister. To deal with those problems that are so difficult in a cynical or politically expedient and cosmetic way would be worse, in my opinion, than to ignore the problems. If they want to deal with them that way, they should not bother. I believe the days of the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) are finished. They were never appropriate but in boom times they were tolerated.
Today we must, as a Legislature, provide the leadership in an attempt to reindustrialize and restructure the north, or we will witness the agonizing deterioration of a very important part of our province. We cannot sit by idly and watch the welfare and unemployment rates soar. Regardless of ideology we have an obligation to do what we can. The private sector is not going to do it. They have not done it in the past and the government has no reason to believe they are going to do it in the future.
I must believe that members will attempt to deal with the problem. One way we talked about in our caucus, and I talked about it to a couple of cabinet ministers, is to strike a small, lean and mean legislative committee and try in a serious way to come up with some recommendations.
I would support that attempt only if there were assurances it would be treated in a serious way by the government. I am not interested in another study or in junketing across northern Ontario at any time of the year. It would have to be done as a Legislature and I hope it would be a serious commitment, that the recommendations would be taken seriously and that there would be a tight time frame on the work of the committee and on the implementation of its major recommendations.
If we do not try to do something, this government has no right to complain about or to refuse to fund the skyrocketing social, welfare and unemployment costs across the north. It is no longer possible for the municipalities to carry the burden and it is incumbent upon us at least to try.
The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other honourable members wishing to speak?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: None.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Wentworth.
Mr. Dean: I am not sure what the Treasurer said. It sounded as if he made a grunt. Perhaps --
Mr. Barlow: I am sure it was complimentary.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: He asked if any other honourable members wanted to speak. There were not any and I said, "None."
Mr. Dean: I know; I have been several things in the course of my life but I --
Mr. Shymko: The member was never a nun.
Mr. Dean: I have not been a nun yet and I doubt if I ever will be. Some people have said I am something like a monk but more like a monkey.
Interjection.
Mr. Dean: The critic for everything in front of me is saying there are great advances in medicine these days, so all things may be possible.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Some things cannot be repaired.
Mr. Dean: I have two very brief comments to make. I know the Treasurer will take them into careful consideration when he considers what will be done with our hard-earned tax dollars for the rest of the period before the budget is finally approved, and maybe even after.
The first is GO Transit, which has been one of the runaway successes of the government of the past few years.
Mr. Haggerty: Well-subsidized too.
12:40 p.m.
Mr. Dean: I never knew of any government
program that was not well-subsidized.
Mr. Warner: A runaway train.
Mr. Wildman: You are out of control.
Mr. Dean: Maybe I should have said railway successes rather than runaway.
Anybody who has travelled the Queen Elizabeth Way in rush hour, and I could say the same thing for many other highways around Toronto, will know that without the substantial number of commuters who are handled by the railway system, especially by GO Transit, we would be in an almost impossible situation.
Mr. Haggerty: It is like that every day now.
Mr. Dean: The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) has thoughtfully pointed out that there are even times other than rush hour when the Queen Elizabeth Way is crowded.
That makes it all the more important that the Treasurer and his colleagues give very serious consideration to starting right away with the extension and enlargement of the GO system, which was begun under the previous Tory administration. I understand it has been at a standstill over the past few months. I recognize there are some problems for greenhorn cabinet ministers in coming to grips with the important decisions that lie before them.
However, there has to be a substantial commitment of provincial funds to the enlargement of the GO system, so it will deal adequately with the increasing number of people who would prefer to come to Toronto and environs by some way other than highway.
The other comment I wish to make is in an entirely different realm, but is equally important in our society. It has to do with health care of the elderly. I am sure the Treasurer knows that by the year 2000 it is estimated that approximately 18 to 20 per cent of our population will be 65 and over.
Mr. Shymko: Including the Treasurer.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member and myself are equally concerned about that.
Mr. Dean: I suppose a good many of us in the House could be considered to have a future conflict of interest on this particular item. I do not think one has to declare a conflict before it happens. Who knows? We may not get that far.
It is understood that not all of that 20 per cent will require government assistance for their care and for their residential existence in the future, but a large proportion of them probably will. While our system is a good one, we have been working for some time on the institution and proper financing of home care programs. As the Treasurer knows, they exist now in two of the ministries, but with different criteria. A great deal of work has been undertaken over the past year or two to rationalize those systems.
I know this is not going to be accomplished initially without additional funding. One cannot suddenly say: "We are going to close the institutions. Everybody is going to have home care." That cannot be done. There will be a period when we will have the ongoing financing of institutional care and the beginning and growing financing of home care. In the long run, the benefit to the people concerned has to be uppermost in our minds. There is no doubt that, provided the persons are reasonably mobile, it is much better for them to have care in surroundings they are familiar with.
In his deliberations as to how the funds are to be allocated in the interim period and for the rest of the budgetary year, I would urge the Treasurer to consider very carefully encouragement of the programs that have been begun. I ask him to make sure, with whatever clout he may have in the cabinet, that he does not have internal turf wars that blunt the effect of the good intentions he may have in his own financial field.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Maybe we could retain the member as a consultant in that area.
Mr. Dean: The Treasurer should see me after the session, out on the turf.
Mr. Shymko: You are not planning to cross the floor, are you?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: You mean to cross back.
Mr. Dean: I am planning to cross the floor with the rest of my colleagues at the earliest opportunity.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member for High Park-Swansea is in the same boat.
Mr. Shymko: The Treasurer is the one who is spreading those rumours.
Mr. Dean: I would rather be in with a group of Tories than in a Liberal leaky dory.
On that high note I will end my comments.
Mr. Wildman: I want to make some comments on the proposal for the passage of interim supply for the government along the lines of those of my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), who talked particularly about the deindustrialization of northern Ontario and the importance of the forestry industry.
I would like to confine my remarks in part to the report of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment, which made some significant recommendations, particularly in the areas of forestry management and regeneration and of the participation of all residents, particularly Indian people, in the decisions on development that affect northern Ontario.
First, I would like to make clear to the government that it is our opinion on this side that the recommendations made by Commissioner Fahlgren, while part of a commission that was set up to look at the situation north of the 50th parallel, should apply in equal measure, if they are acceptable north of 50, to all of northern Ontario, that is, north of the French River.
I also want to draw the Treasurer's attention to a comment made about another royal commission some years ago: "A royal commission is of no value unless it sensitizes public opinion to the point where it demands immediate changes in the statutes. We realize that if we had no impact, they would just bury the report."
That is not a comment by a Liberal, much less by the Treasurer. It is a comment by one Brian Mulroney when he was acting as counsel for the Quebec Cliche royal commission into construction-industry corruption in Quebec in 1975. While Mr. Mulroney does not say many things with which I agree, that is certainly one: "A royal commission is of no value unless it sensitizes public opinion to the point where it demands immediate changes in the statutes."
I must admit that as the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment continued its work and went on and on and on, many of us in northern Ontario took a very cynical view of the work of that commission, and some of us still may have some of that cynicism. Certainly, the work of the royal commission and its report in no way justify eight years of time spent, nor do they justify the expenditure of approximately $12 million. This is the most expensive royal commission in Ontario history. Its recommendations, while some are worth while, do not justify that kind of expenditure of time and resources.
I have indicated that we believe, and many northerners believe, that the recommendations on forestry in the report and the comments Mr. Fahlgren makes regarding the Ministry of Natural Resources are very well founded. Frankly, a lot of us are surprised at that, considering Edwin Fahlgren's background, but we are pleasantly surprised.
These recommendations, which we support, particularly as they regard the participation of Indian people and forestry, have been called for by members of this party for many years. We did not require the enormous research staff and the millions of public dollars that were expended by Mr. Fahlgren to come up with those kinds of recommendations.
12:50 p.m.
The Treasurer will recall many discussions about our research component in this House and around the Legislature, and he will know from past experience on the Board of Internal Economy -- I was going to say "inquiry" -- that neither this party nor any of the parties has anything like the resources Mr. Fahlgren had. Yet we were able to come up with very similar recommendations.
Having criticized Mr. Fahlgren's commission for the amount of money it spent, I will say it would be a complete and utter waste of money, time and energy if the provincial government did not act immediately to implement the recommendations on northern control of decision-making and forest management. The residents of northern Ontario have the right to become the masters of their own fate. Some of the recommendations of the commission should be considered very carefully.
I understand the provincial government has set up an interministerial task force to look at the recommendations of the commission. Frankly, some of the cynicism I had about the commission comes back when I hear that. What this government has done, it appears, is to have the very bureaucrats who are criticized severely by Mr. Fahlgren study his recommendations to find out how they could be implemented and how those bureaucrats themselves would lose some of the power they have had in the past. It is a bit like putting the fox in among the chickens, if one believes these bureaucrats will come up with the kind of implementation plan these recommendations require.
Some of the things proposed by Mr. Fahlgren are interesting, such as his northern development authority, since he thinks this is one way we could have northerners involved in decision-making and exert some control over the development decisions that affect the region and northern communities. This may sound funny coming from a member of this party, but I am not in favour of setting up any more bureaucratic bodies that will rule on situations in northern Ontario, even if the three members of the authority were northerners. If it just becomes another bureaucratic step, it would add to the frustrations northern Ontario residents have felt for so long, but it is worth considering. I am not sure the way the government is considering it is the best way to go about it.
Obviously, the provincial government should act immediately to accept the commission's proposals to transfer more decision-making and land and resource ownership to the Indian bands of northern Ontario. As far as the provincial government is concerned, those bands now on crown lands should be given reserve status and all the bands should have adequate resources to ensure they will have some real control over development in their areas. We agree, and we have proposed it for many years, that Indian bands should be involved in the resource management, policing, education and welfare developments in their communities.
If we as a Legislature are in favour of Indian self-government, the recommendations of the commission should be implemented immediately. I am not sure the government's approach is going to lead to that.
My colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) raised the question of the people of Grassy Narrows and Whitedog with respect to the settlement of the compensation claims of those two bands, and described it as the greatest social crime that has ever been committed in this province. I certainly agree with that. I hope the government will move quickly to implement the commission's recommendations that the Reed agreement be repudiated and no additional timber be allocated to Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd. until a settlement with these bands is reached. If the government were to take that kind of position, then we might much more quickly have the kind of agreement the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) says he hopes will come soon.
It is something that must be done if we are to remove one of the worst black marks on Ontario history and bring about anything like the kind of social justice we say we support -- all of us, no matter what our political party.
As I have said, the commission and the commissioner were very correct in their criticism of the Conservative government and the industry in their failure properly to manage the resources of the forest. We have a tremendous backlog of unregenerated cutover areas that must be rehabilitated. The government and the industry must immediately commit the resources required to accomplish this.
The announcement made today by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) to fulfil, he says, the commitment for an independent forestry audit is welcome in the sense, as my colleague the member for Nickel Belt indicated, that the previous government was so defensive about the situation in Ontario's forests that it was not prepared even to give the figures, which in themselves are suspect, to the public or to members of this Legislature.
As my colleague indicated, we are disappointed that the minister apparently does not understand what the word "independent" means. If the auditor is simply to study those suspect figures, then the auditor's findings in themselves will be suspect.
If, as the minister says, the auditor does not have to do that -- he can talk to other people; he can go into northern Ontario; he can even go into the field, into the bush -- what kind of snowshoes and snowmobiles are we going to give him? How is he going to be able to blow off the snow to find out what is underneath in order to tell what kind of regeneration is taking place in cutover areas? It is silly. At best it indicates the minister does not understand; at worst it indicates he has been hoodwinked by the bureaucrats who have been in the ministry for too long.
I hope the government will reconsider and will give the commissioner a longer time and the staff and resources to enable him to go into the bush, get some ground experience and talk to the various people in academe, in the industry and the public sector who have been critical of the ministry in the past, as well as to ministry officials. In so doing, he could get a more balanced view and come up with his own figures and be able to tell the Legislature and the public the exact extent of our needs in Ontario's forests.
Forestry is the most important industry in this province. It employs directly and indirectly more people than any other industry in Ontario. Unfortunately, most people and most members in southern Ontario do not understand that. Many jobs in southern Ontario communities, not just northern Ontario communities, are directly dependent on the forest industry. Unless we in this province have a future in forests, we are headed for a terrible economic situation, not only in northern Ontario but throughout our province.
On motion by Mr. Wildman, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.