Journal des débats 1988-nov-10 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Sterling moved second reading of Bill 157, An Act to authorize Municipalities to pass By-laws respecting Smoking in the Workplace and in Enclosed Public Places.

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

Mr. Sterling: At the outset, I would like to reserve any portion that is not used in the next 20 minutes for a windup after other members of the Legislature have had an opportunity to comment.

I am very pleased today to speak on behalf of Bill 157, the Municipal Smoking By-law Authorization Act. However, I would like to make it clear from the outset that this legislation, frankly, is my second choice to bring forward at this time. I would have preferred to bring forward Bill 3, which also stands in my name, the NonSmokers’ Protection Act, which would have invoked province-wide control on smoking in public places, public vehicles and in the workplace. It is not an optional bill whereby municipalities opt in or opt out. It would have applied to all areas of the province, inclusively.

It was just yesterday that I received a letter from Dr. Goodyear of the Ontario Cancer Foundation, Hamilton Clinic. He too disagrees with the priority of my bills and suggests:

“A province-wide measure is going to make a much bigger impact on the health of this community than leaving it to a municipality-by-municipality approach. In light of recent moves by the federal government, I believe that the province has a mandate and a responsibility to pass complementary legislation to the two federal bills to ensure that the protection offered by those bills applies to the people of Ontario as well. Unfortunately, and most surprisingly, the provincial government is still dragging its feet on this issue, and it is therefore up to private members, such as yourself, to take on this responsibility.”

Unfortunately, previous experience with Bill 3 and its forerunner, Bill 71 as it was known at that time, and with this government, has led me to believe that such a measure would not meet with success. Instead, I have chosen to go with my second-best option and allow municipalities to address the smoke-in-the-workplace issue on an individual basis. After all, half a loaf is better than none.

I would now like to address my comments to Bill 157 directly. The essence of this bill is quite simple, in that it will enable a local council of any municipality to pass bylaws with respect to smoking in the workplace. The bill also allows a municipality to appoint inspector to enforce the act. Should an inspector be obstructed in his or her duties, the inspector may apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to enter into the workplace.

As well, the bill enables the local council of a municipality to pass bylaws prohibiting or regulating smoking in enclosed public places. I have included this particular section in the bill as I feel there continues to exist some confusion in municipalities with respect to their ability to enact nonsmoking bylaws for public areas. While I believe that the right currently exists for municipalities to pass this kind of bylaw, including it in my bill can only add the weight of specific provincial approval for those hesitant to proceed in this direction.

This bill does not require a municipality to adopt this legislation, but it offers it the opportunity if it should so desire. This is necessary if municipalities are going to legislate in the area of the workplace, for they do not have that power at this time.

To date, this assembly has passed three pieces of enabling legislation to do essentially the same as my bill does. The city of Toronto, the city of Etobicoke and the town of Markham now have the ability to enact workplace smoking bylaws. In view of the government’s passage of these bills, one must assume it is supportive of this type of legislation. I congratulate the government of Ontario on allowing this initiative to these progressive municipalities. It should be noted, however, that other municipalities are eagerly knocking on the province’s door for similar legislation. I shall refer to this issue later.

What of the remaining municipalities? There are over 800 other municipalities. What protection is afforded to workers in these communities with respect to smoking in the workplace? In a word, none. They do not have any rights with regard to being protected from secondhand smoke in the workplace.

I perceive this to be an injustice for a number of reasons. If the luxury of a smoke-free workplace is available to workers in Toronto, why is it not also available to those in Kanata, Cumberland, Timmins, Trenton or Timiskaming. Should not these communities have the option open to them as well?

Many municipalities, particularly smaller ones, do not have the time, expertise or financial resources to create a private bill to offer the province to try to seek the approval of this Legislature so that they can have this power. Should these municipal councils lose out on the opportunity to protect their workers because or these inabilities?

The answer to these questions is obvious, which is why I hope all members of this assembly will support my bill and rectify this explicit injustice.

Across this country, only 22 municipalities have workplace smoking bylaws. The majority of these occur in British Columbia and Alberta. In Ontario, we have one functioning bylaw in the city of Toronto, with two more to come on board in the new year. Members may also be aware that a number of municipalities are awaiting provincial guidance on this issue. Many communities would rejoice to hear the government indicate it is going to enact provincial legislation on this matter, but I suspect that will be a long wait, as my Bill 71 died on the order paper awaiting third reading, and I fear the same fate awaits Bill 3 which is a sequel to Bill 71.

1010

I sincerely hope the bill we are discussing today does not suffer from the same degree of neglect. While this initiative is necessary for the convenience of the municipalities, it is also necessary for another important reason. For some inexplicable reason, tobacco use appears to be on the increase. Statistics Canada figures show that for the first eight months of 1988, overall tobacco sales in Canada are up by almost one percentage point. Until this year, the change experienced has been one of decline. In previous years, the decline has been in the area of two per cent, three per cent or four per cent. A reverse in this trend is frightening for the health of Canadians.

Recently, we experienced in the east a toxic mussel scare. It elicited tremendous public and tremendous government reaction. Yet today, on November 10, 35 people to 40 people will die prematurely by seven years due to the ill effects of tobacco.

It is not being dealt with in a serious manner by this province at this time. It is a matter that should be dealt with in a serious manner. Unfortunately, in Canada, 1988 will be a landmark year -- unfortunately, because tragically, more women will die in 1988 as a result of lung cancer than will die of breast cancer. Tobacco is the greatest single cause of lung cancer. Approximately 90 per cent of people who contract lung cancer have it as a result of tobacco use.

Tobacco contributes greatly to heart disease, throat cancer, esophageal cancer and respiratory diseases. In North America every year, there are 350,000 smoking-related deaths. Those figures are hard to ignore. We do not know if it is the nicotine or one of the remaining 49 toxic gases, particles or liquids found in cigarettes that creates the poison that takes hold of an individual and draws that life to a close prematurely. We do know that nicotine is addictive, and that once addicted it becomes very difficult for an individual to break that addiction. I know of no other legal substance that has such devastating effects when used as directed.

The issue that cuts to the very heart of this bill is the issue of secondhand smoke. While reducing the opportunity to smoke in the workplace may assist some smokers in their attempt to break their addiction, this bill is primarily aimed at the nonsmokers, to protect them from sidestream or secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke is more than a nuisance for nonsmokers in their place of employment. It is a health hazard, which for the most must simply be endured as there is no recourse for the employee who suffers from it. One cannot walk away from one’s job quite so easily as one could leave a smoke-filled restaurant.

The effects of secondhand smoke have been well documented. In this age of hypersensitivity, more and more individuals are becoming allergic to many of the airborne pollutants and chemicals we are forced to breathe each day. Respiratory ailments are no longer uncommon. The most common hazards of secondhand smoke include headaches, runny eyes and nose, coughs, nausea, a worsening of allergies, breathing difficulties, respiratory illness, and yes, even lung cancer; all this without mentioning the effect of smoke on the unborn.

Each year, 5,500 nonsmokers die in North America as a result of secondhand smoke. We must reduce, or at least reverse, this unacceptable death toll rate.

Secondhand smoke is both bothersome and hazardous. Individuals should not have to make employment choices; that is, to work or not to work on the basis of air quality in their offices. If individuals will not look to the health cause, then employers should be looking to the economic costs of workplace smoking, for it is a costly venture.

Studies have shown that smokers miss twice as much work as their nonsmoking colleagues. Smokers have twice the accident rate of nonsmokers. The smoking employee wastes up to 30 minutes per day lighting up. What is the cost to the employer? On a general average basis, approximately $5,000 per year per smoker. Now add this to the increased health care costs from smoking, the property damage as a result of careless smoking, and most of all the loss of the individuals who suffer death as a result of smoking, and you get a total of $5.2 billion in Canada a year lost to this habit of smoking in the workplace.

Combine the health and economic costs with the fact that 70 per cent of the population does not smoke and I believe members will see the necessity, at the very least of workplace smoking bylaws. If we can focus in on this one area of the entire smoking issue and effect a change there, then we may be able to encourage people to reduce their tobacco intake. We may even save some lives in the process. This, I feel, is a goal worth striving for.

Perhaps the best part of this initiative, Bill 157, is that it is not new. In fact, the concept has been proved effective by the city of Toronto; it is tried and true. They, in effect, were the guinea-pig to determine the effectiveness of this type of legislation and the experiment is working.

Workers are not rioting in the streets as some might have suggested. Employers are working with their employees to find effective and flexible smoking policies for their individual workplaces. To give you an example of how it has worked here in Toronto, the city has received 263 official complaints that it has had to investigate. Only one out of the 263 has actually been prosecuted in court. This means that 262 official complaints were settled amicably between the employer and his or her employees.

In addition, there have been thousands of telephone inquiries on this issue. Interestingly enough, many phone calls have been made on this issue by provincial government employees who are located in the city of Toronto, but who are not covered by this legislation. Keep in mind that the city of Toronto has over 50,000 workplaces and in excess of a half-million employees to contend with, and yet there was only one instance of noncompliance in all of the city of Toronto in the first eight months of this being in place.

There are many municipalities, as I mentioned, that are knocking on the door. There are many employees across this province who are not covered by this particular legislation.

I notice with a certain degree of disappointment and regret that the provincial government’s plans for creating a smoking ban in provincial offices has missed its September 1 deadline. I sincerely hope this is not an indication of their interest in this entire question. I know that the former Minister of Health who is now the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston) will not renege on his promise to more than 84,000 civil servants in Ontario in many government offices across our province. I would think that he and the present Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) would certainly see the value of my proposed legislation.

1020

Finally, the members representing areas like the city of Ottawa, the city of Windsor, the city of North York, the city of Scarborough and the city of Hamilton should take a moment to listen to their local councils. I think they will find this is one responsibility they are now willing to take on in lack of provincial action. We have a choice today to pass this bill or we can go the very expensive and time-consuming route which has been travelled on three previous occasions by Toronto, Etobicoke and Markham.

To conclude this portion of my remarks, I would like to briefly mention a few groups and organizations that have offered their support to my endeavours with regard to smoking over the past three years. They include the Ontario Lung Association; the Canadian Heart Foundation; Physicians For A Smoke-Free Canada; the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario division; the Non-Smokers’ Rights Association and countless thousands of individuals. In fact, I presented a petition in the last parliament on behalf of over 30,000 individuals who have written to me indicating their appreciation for action that I have taken on behalf of this smoking issue.

I sincerely hope that on this occasion my endeavours will prove more fruitful than in the past. Individuals in Ontario should have the freedom to smoke, but they do not have the right to pollute the air of others.

Mr Miller: I am pleased to rise this morning to take part in the debate on private member’s Bill 157, An Act to authorize Municipalities to pass By-laws respecting Smoking in the Workplace and in Enclosed Public Places. I have long admired the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) for the sincere concern he has often demonstrated for the rights of nonsmokers. I want to make it clear to that member and to all other members in this House that I have no problem with the principle of this bill, just its method.

I represent the riding of Norfolk, where the production of tobacco represents an important part of the local economy. Like anyone in business, tobacco farmers have to be able to predict and assess in a reasonable way what forces will shape the market environment in which they have to sell their product. In Ontario, this process is aided by the Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board, but the overall demand for their product is slipping.

This bill, should it become law, would place the tobacco farmers and those communities dependent upon tobacco production in the position of not knowing when or where such a bylaw would be enacted. There would be no consistency in action, no consistency in standards and no consistency in the effect upon tobacco growers, their families and communities.

The members of this House who represent ridings where tobacco growing is an important economic activity know all too well that the tobacco growing industry is not in the best shape at the present time. Since 1982, tobacco production in Ontario has dropped nearly 50 per cent. The number of Ontario tobacco farmers has dropped from 2,500 to 1,500.

All in all, the tobacco industry is experiencing an annual market decline of approximately five per cent, and this is projected to continue for the next three or few years. Revenue from tobacco taxes is down $15 million, according to the Treasurer’s second quarterly report for 1988-89.

Eighty per cent of all tobacco grown in Canada is grown within 50 kilometres of the town of Delhi in my riding. Only a few weeks ago, the Dibcom Tobacco Processor Ltd. plant in that community shut down. The result is that 25 full-time jobs and 200 seasonal jobs have disappeared from a town of 4,500 people.

I am sure I do not need to emphasize that a job loss of this magnitude means a great deal to a small community. The tobacco-related workforce in the riding of Norfolk and in other tobacco growing regions across the province is real people. Some of them are without jobs now. More will be without work over the next few years and many will face multiple layoffs. This bill says nothing as to how to help these people adjust to the new reality which confronts them.

This kind of inconsistent, piecemeal approach to regulating smoking in the workplace is not fair to the employees of Ontario, nor is it fair to the tobacco farmers of the communities who depend upon this industry for their survival. What is needed is a uniform and consistently applied set of regulations which do not differ from town to town or from city to city. Then at least the farmer would know where he stands.

The government of Ontario, on the other hand, has been approaching the downsizing of the tobacco industry in a sensitive and rationale way.

The government of Ontario was instrumental in establishing the three-year accord, including $15 million for funding the tobacco assistance program. This program has led to an orderly and a compassionate restructuring of the tobacco production sector. The government of Ontario continues to provide a broad array of programs to help tobacco growers. These programs include research services, the transition crop team and market development assistance, especially considering the export market. I will not mention the extensive programs available to all farmers.

In addition to the practical economic question, which this bill fails to address, there is also the issue of the rights of smoking workers. There is the larger question of workplace air quality. A recent study of air quality was done in a number of Ottawa offices where smoking was not regulated. It showed that the exposure to environmental tobacco smoke by nonsmokers in office environments was very low. In fact, a person would have to spend 260 straight hours in such an office environment to be exposed to the equivalent environmental tobacco smoke in one cigarette. I know that in my own office, where we have no outside air to recirculate, you are breathing somebody else’s air, recycled air. I think a lot of effort has to be put into changing that so that at least people have the opportunity of breathing fresh air from the outside.

I recognize that workplace smoking regulations impinge upon a complex set of conflicting values and perceived individual rights, and I feel I must point out that tobacco remains a legal product in this country. As long as it remains a legal product, its use must be a matter of choice and the rights of those who choose to use this product must also be recognized. Again I must say that this bill does nothing to accommodate the rights of the smokers, and I will say nonsmokers as well, because it is very imprecise as to where a person may smoke if he so wishes. There is not a word in this bill referring to a designated smoking area. This kind of omission is a disservice, as I said, to smokers and nonsmokers alike.

To continue my remarks on this bill, I want to reiterate that this bill would serve only to make planning more difficult for the farmer. At least the committee process allows other points of view to be heard before legislation is brought forward for second and third reading. If this bill were passed, I feel that the rights of a minority, smokers, would be ignored.

I think the most basic flaw with this bill is that it is modelled on a very specific piece of legislation that was developed for a particular community, in this case the town of Markham. I do not mean to belittle the town of Markham, and I have nothing but respect for the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens), but I believe, and I am sure even the member would agree, that what is good for Markham may not necessarily be good for Ontario.

I do not intend to support the bill. I believe our government is capable of bringing in a bill dealing with the smoking issue that would be fairer to everyone in Ontario.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to welcome you to your role in the chair, sir. I look forward to being put in my place by you, as I have been by so many others in that chair over the years.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. B. Rae: I knew that would get some support from members.

I am delighted to speak in the debate today. I want to start by saying that I think there is considerable merit in the arguments that have been made both by the member for Carleton and by the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller).

There is a reality, however, that we have to come to terms with: Tobacco kills people. There is no other way to put it. You can dance around it all you want. You can think of all the things that one can say about cigarettes or the numbers of warnings that we put on packages of cigarettes, but we have an incredible problem. We have a substance that for cultural reasons has been part of our way of life. All of us are obviously affected by tobacco. We have a habit that is culturally sanctioned, that is widely advertised and that is economically important.

The member for Norfolk has spoken very movingly and consistently in this House on behalf of his constituents, and if any one of us represented his riding, we would be doing precisely the same thing, pointing out that people who have been producing tobacco are losing income, losing their farms, losing their way of life, and the regional economy in southwestem Ontario is obviously very much affected by this change.

1030

Mr. Miller: It is a legal product.

Mr. B. Rae: And, as the member says in raising it with me, it is a legal product. He is quite right in saying that; it is a legal product. This is why in our party we have argued as follows. It is obviously unrealistic to ban tobacco or to make it illegal as a product at the present time. Obviously, because of the extent of the habit and because it is in many respects essentially a private habit, it would be absurd to carry out a ban making the substance and the production of that substance illegal.

I want to add, though, that it does not just end there. What we have to do is to recognize, and I think this government should recognize much more clearly and forthrightly than it has, that tobacco kills.

Mr. Miller: What doesn’t?

Mr. B. Rae: I will be glad to engage in an argument with the member for Norfolk, but the reality is that the evidence from the United States, from the United Kingdom, from Canada, from the World Health Organization, from around the world is absolutely overwhelming: Tobacco is addictive. The smoking of tobacco, the chewing of tobacco and the sniffing of tobacco are habits that are addictive and they are habits that can kill. The evidence is overwhelming in terms of the relationship to lung cancer, the relationship to heart disease. Those are facts.

What we have proposed is that while this reality should be at the forefront of the government’s policy with respect to health, at the same time those who are now engaged in the production of this substance, who are going to be affected by an aggressive and effective government policy with respect to smoking, should be compensated. They must be compensated and they must be compensated in a generous and effective way.

I would suggest to the member that he can do, and I know he will do, as much as possible for his constituents by saying, “Don’t make the tobacco farmers of this province exclusively pay the price for what is surely now, every one of us would agree, firmly on the public health agenda.”

That is the issue. The issue is not, I would suggest to the member, getting into an argument. I have had this argument with workers in the cigarette factories in Guelph and in Toronto. We start talking about it and I say, “Look, the difficulty that all of us are in is that we do know that tobacco is a noxious substance, it is a toxic substance and it causes death.” They say, “Well, we don’t know; all the facts aren’t in” -- you know, all the arguments one has heard ever since the 1950s, when studies first began to be done about the effects of tobacco.

My argument has been, consistently, with those men and women who are not that highly paid and who are devastatedly affected by this change in our society, let’s focus on the issue of compensation. Let’s increase substantially the amount per cigarette that Ontario collects in taxes. We now collect in Ontario --

Mr. Miller: More taxes are not the answer, so long as tobacco is a legal product and people smoke. It will drive them to roll-your-own smoking, as in the 1930s.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: I am happy to be heckled by the member for Norfolk, and I do not mind it. I know the extent of his feelings on this subject and I know the kind of difficulties he is facing in his own constituency, and I respect him for that. But if I may, let me put forward my point of view.

I am speaking now as a private member but also obviously as leader of our party, I feel very strongly that we should be increasing the taxes on cigarettes. I think we should be increasing the taxes per cigarette. Ontario now has the lowest taxation per cigarette, at 2.83 cents, of any jurisdiction in Canada. That is a disgrace.

We should be using that money to do two things. We should be setting that money aside from an increase in revenues. We should be setting that money aside to do two things. First of all, we should compensate those who are working in the tobacco industry, farmers and people who are working in cigarette factories. Second, we should be dealing directly with a much more aggressive campaign on the effect of cigarettes on health, than we have done.

There is, if I might say so, an interesting article today in the Toronto Globe and Mail, from which we understand that the government of Canada -- which I understand is now run by a party that is roughly similar to the one that is represented by the member for Carleton -- has in fact, I gather under the Tobacco Products Control Act, pulled its punches in terms of the kind of information which is being given out on cigarette packages, that they have not put as aggressive a message on the cigarette packages as should be there.

I say to the member for Norfolk, I am fed up with the statistics that show that young women are increasingly turning to smoking. I am fed up with advertising which shows smoking to be a trendy and acceptable habit. I am fed up with walking into all kinds of environments and finding young people still turning to cigarettes because they think it is the fashionable thing to do. Those kids do not know today what we know because they are not aware. We have taken for granted the fact that cigarettes cause lung cancer. We said, “Oh, that was news in 1958 and 1959 when the US Surgeon General began to talk about it.” But the kids today do not know about it.

We, as a province, and the government of Canada must be aggressive and effective in saying: “Look, it just isn’t a smart thing to do. It’s not a healthy thing to do. It’s not a wise thing to do.” I think it is time for us to get aggressive and effective in dealing with what is a major public health hazard and problem in Ontario today. We cannot put our heads in the sand any longer on this question. It is very important that we move ahead.

There are two other points that I want to make. One is that I support the bill with respect to bylaws and the enforcement of bylaws. Again, it is an example where the municipalities, and if I may say so local boards of health, have been ahead of this government in moving on this question of public health and the impact that it is having in the workplace. I think it is worthy of support.

The last point I want to make is that I have talked today about the effect that smoking has on health. I want to say that I think it is time this province looked hard and long at the need for a universal sickness and accident plan which would provide effective disability benefits and disability payments for those whose lives have been devastated by cancer and by heart disease caused by smoking.

All of us in this House know that a number of times we have had arguments with the Workers’ Compensation Board because we have not been able to prove that a lung cancer, a stomach cancer or some other kind of cancer is related to the workplace. Many times the doctors at the board say: “Was this guy a smoker? If he was a smoker, we have no way of knowing whether the cancer came from the workplace or from tobacco.”

They are right, technically speaking. That is why I want to say, talking about crusades, it is time we had a crusade in this province for a universal sickness and accident plan that would provide disability benefits for all those who are affected by sickness and illness, regardless of cause. I think we should be taking this debate that we are having today, the debate on car insurance and the debate that we are having on workers’ compensation, and putting them into this new perspective that we have in this party, that it is high time that Ontario had a universal sickness and accident plan that would provide compensation for all those who are the victims of illness, sickness and accidents.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to join in this debate on Bill 157 and would like first of all to give credit to the member for Carleton, who has been a crusader and who has been a person who has been fighting in a most genuine way in defence of the whole society which we are trying to represent, that is to help protect our society from the hazards and problems related to smoking.

My friend the member for Carleton has presented a case here this morning that I am surprised even the member for Norfolk, a man for whom I have very high regard and great respect, has not found he is able to support. The only question I would ask the member for Norfolk is whether the member puts profit ahead of health. That really becomes the concern.

Mr. Miller: That is not true.

Mr. Cousens: I did not hear the member say that. Maybe we should give him extra time to comment on that. In the meantime, I am especially pleased that our friend the member for Carleton has made such an excellent case for this bill.

1040

An identical bill has already been passed by this Legislature in a private member’s bill that I presented on May 24, 1988, Bill Pr20, An Act respecting the Town of Markham. This bill we are now looking at today, which is Bill 157, is identical to that. I could not have put together Bill Pr20 without the assistance and support of the member for Carleton, so I am especially pleased that he has been able to bring it forward. He has been the leader in our caucus and I think across Ontario in this crusade, and it is in that respect that I am pleased to support him on it.

When I became interested in this bill, it had to do with one person. She more than any other woke up the community of Markham to the need for some legislation. Her name is Donna Bush. I would like to read into the record the presentation she made to the town of Markham. She said:

“My name is Donna Bush and I am a resident of the town of Markham. I have been on medical leave of absence from my workplace, which is an international corporation, for the past 18 months. The reason for my medical leave is a disease called asthma. My asthma began over four years ago when I was subjected to secondhand smoke at the workplace. My extreme sensitivity to secondhand smoke has brought me close to death on a number of occasions. Although there is no cure for my disease, I must rely on medication for the rest of my life.

“There is only one course of action that will enable me to get back to work. That action is to obtain enabling legislation that will allow the town of Markham to pass a bylaw to regulate smoking in the workplace.

“I have been working on this issue within the town of Markham since 1986, and am here representing the vast majority of people in Markham. They are comprised of students, senior citizens, business owners, people from many varied occupations, nonsmokers and smokers alike. The nonsmokers are suffering from secondhand smoke and the smokers are suffering from nicotine addiction. Both groups have one thing in common and that is the desire for health protection. This health protection is something that is not voluntarily forthcoming from most of our employers.”

She goes go on in her presentation, but I just know there are more Donna Bushes out there, not only in the riding of Markham but across the province of Ontario. Who knows, there may be a person similar to Donna Bush in the riding of Norfolk. People like that are only asking for the protection that is their due. Therefore, I am pleased to see the bill before us now, Bill 157, will have an application across the entire province for those municipalities that want to do something with it.

I think many people are not aware of just how limited existing legislation is and why it is essential that the province begin now to look at this bill. Without this legislation being passed by the province, a municipality in the province of Ontario is limited in its efforts to prohibit or regulate smoking in public places and has no specific legal authority to control smoking in the workplace.

The Municipal Act, RSO 1980, chapter 302, as amended, gives a municipality certain powers to regulate smoking. Section 104 provides in part, “Every council may pass such bylaws and make such regulations for the health, safety, morality and welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality in matters not specifically provided for by this act as may be deemed expedient and are not contrary to law.” This section has been used by municipalities on various occasions to deal with matters that were not specifically referred to in the Municipal Act.

The courts view this section with some suspicion and have tended to give it a very narrow interpretation. A municipality would use this section as a last resort only if it could not find more specific authority elsewhere in the Municipal Act.

Paragraph 134 of section 210 states, “Bylaws may be passed by the councils of local municipalities...for prohibiting and abating public nuisances.” Again, the power given to a municipality to use this section to control smoking is general in nature. A municipality would have to prove that smoking in public places is a public nuisance.

Paragraph 27 of section 210 is the only reference in the Municipal Act which gives a municipality specific rights to regulate smoking. It reads as follows, “Bylaws may be passed by the councils of local municipalities...for regulating smoking in retail shops in which 10 or more persons are employed, or in any class or classes thereof, and for prohibiting smoking in such shops or any class or classes thereof, or in any part or parts thereof.”

While it is specific, it is limited in scope, and does not address the numerous situations that can be encountered with smoking in public places, in malls, in plazas and in particular in the workplace.

With this bill, and the bill is identical to the one in Markham, we are looking at a subject which has been characterized, certainly in Markham, as a public nuisance, in that exhaled smoke and smoke from idling cigarettes are a health hazard.

Markham also stated in its own preamble to its existing bylaws that it is desirable for the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Markham to provide for regulating smoking.

For a municipality to successfully defend the challenge to a smoking bylaw based on a public nuisance or a health hazard, a municipality must prove that smoking is both of those things. That is to say, it must be both a public nuisance and a health hazard. The courts have held that a municipality cannot constitute an act a public nuisance by simply designating it as such. The act must in fact be a public nuisance. As stated earlier, the courts have given a very narrow interpretation to section 104 and there would be an obligation on the part of the municipality, if challenged, to show that a smoking regulation bylaw passed under this section was passed in order to protect the health, safety, morality and welfare of the inhabitants.

Rather than confront these obstacles, the town of Markham proposed its own legislation, and that is why the member for Carleton has proposed this general legislation for the whole province, to give specific authority to any municipality that wants it to prohibit and regulate smoking in public places.

What we are really talking about is a subject that affects all those people in the province of Ontario when they are electing councils this coming Monday. Maybe what they should have done is asked those councillors during the municipal election process, “What would you do if we as a council had the opportunity to institute this kind of regulation within the workplace and within the community at large?” I would hope that many communities would rise to the challenge, even without that opportunity being raised now prior to municipal elections, to say: “Yes, we are going to do something about it. We are grateful that the province has given the leadership. The province has now put the laws in place so that we as municipalities are not going to be threatened with possible legal action against us by virtue of having taken a strong action to protect the nonsmoker in the workplace.”

This is an important bill and I trust it will receive full support from this House.

Mrs. LeBourdais: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak for this particular bill, which I wholeheartedly support. It is, in fact, one for which I have waited with bated breath -- bated due to the all-too-frequent smoke-filled workplace, where fresh, breatheable air is too often at a premium.

Every member of this House should be aware that the member for Carleton takes the issue of smoking and its effects upon the public health very seriously, as do I and many of my colleagues. Since my coming to the Legislature a short year and a half ago, my first office was formerly the member from Carleton’s office, so I thank him for providing me with a smoke-free workplace. I also turned it over as a smoke-free workplace to the new incumbent in that office.

The time has now come, however, to take another step forward and support measures to enhance the reduction of tobacco smoke in the workplace. It is by no means the only contaminant from which we have to safeguard ourselves, but it is the most prevalent and to my way of thinking the greatest irritant.

1050

Although I am a nonsmoker, I am not without sympathy for the difficulties faced by the chronic smoker who is subjected to additional stresses and strain when working in a smoke-free environment. For this reason, I wholeheartedly support any and all programs which assist individuals in overcoming their addiction in a manner which will make the withdrawal process a more bearable one both for them and for us.

I believe this bill attempts to balance concerns of smokers and nonsmokers by enabling the employer to allow smoking in designated smoking areas. While this bill will empower the employer to allow smoking in the workplace, consultation with employees may want to be more strongly encouraged. Simply digging in our heels and storming out in righteous indignation is not the answer.

While I support the accommodation of smokers, as the smoking area is set out to provide, I would encourage a degree of restriction on the size of such areas. The point must still be made that smoking is to be discouraged in the workplace, where it has for all too long infringed on the clean air space of fellow workers.

For all too long, those of us who are nonsmokers have been made to feel that we are difficult or spoilsports if we voice an objection to those around us smoking in close proximity while we sit with burning and often tear-filled eyes and return home with clothes reeking of tobacco smoke.

Although it is part of the desire to encourage the accommodation of nonsmokers, this bill does not require structural alterations, thus making it easier for employers to accommodate nonsmokers. I would hope that in construction of new buildings or the reconstruction of existing facilities appropriate designs would be put in place that would ensure completely separated spaces and adequate ventilation. Just as we have now learned to accommodate the physically disabled, we must also learn to engineer our buildings so that they accommodate smokers and nonsmokers alike.

I am pleased to make note that some 60 municipalities, which include the vast majority of the province’s population, have already endorsed smoking bylaws with the support of their respective communities. The system is working and thereby ensuring a healthier workplace environment for smokers and nonsmokers alike.

As members well know, my government supports the municipal option in certain other jurisdictions and although this bill supports the municipal option, I would hope that in future legislation covering this area would be province-wide. Air space is not something you can cordon off.

Smoking is a major cause of ill health, disability and premature death. This is all the more tragic because it is preventable. The effects of smoking are well documented and well publicized, but I still want to review some of the statistics.

Thirty per cent of cancer and coronary heart disease deaths are directly attributable to smoking. Overall death rates for smokers are 13 to 17 times higher than those for nonsmokers. It has been estimated that an average of five and a half minutes of life are lost for each cigarette smoked.

Awareness of the health consequences of smoking is not limited to nonsmokers, however. In fact, surveys show that smokers and nonsmokers alike are nearly equally supportive of restrictions on smoking in the workplace. This general acknowledgement of the health consequences of smoking among both smokers and nonsmokers, as well as the increasing evidence which demonstrates the linkage between secondary tobacco smoke or environmental tobacco smoke as it is sometimes called, and the health of nonsmokers has given rise to new concerns and demands for restrictions on smoking in workplaces.

As a result, workplace smoke restriction policies are becoming more commonplace and none too soon. Historically, smoking restrictions were imposed for safety, security or productivity reasons. Today, however, the motivation is more likely to be related to concerns for highly sensitive computer equipment and the demands of nonsmokers for a smoke-free workplace.

As the number of nonsmokers in this province continues to increase, we in this Legislature must take a leading role and must reflect this change in society’s attitude to smoke in the workplace, and I think we can start with our respective east and west lobbies as soon as possible.

We are not dragging our feet but rather saying that through thorough and thoughtful deliberation we will address the issue in a manner that will fulfil the commitment of the Minister of Health to provide a direction towards healthier lifestyles while showing a certain sensitivity to those for whom smoking is a long-standing addiction that is difficult to overcome.

Tobacco companies themselves know that the writing is on the wall. Most have already begun diversifying their investments into other areas or, regrettably, targeting our youth, particularly young girls, and also targeting Third World countries where the marketplace is less sophisticated and less well informed on the hazards of smoking. Farmers must look to that diversification by the tobacco companies and plan to diversify themselves and to start now. A major cigarette firm has used the phrase, “You’ve come a long way, baby” to suggest that women who smoke have made great strides in emulating men, including their cigarette intake.

Mr. Wildman: What man would refer to himself as “baby”?

Mrs. LeBourdais: The odd one.

Interjections.

Mrs. LeBourdais: None has taken great steps, if that is the only advancement we can allude to. Only when we have butted out on that last weed can we already claim that “Baby, we’ve now come a long way,” but as yet we still have a long way to go.

It has always surprised me that often in discussions with young mothers when I myself had a young child, as I would sit in their living rooms and they would be talking about all the plans they have for their young children, about the way they are going to educate them, the way they are going to train them, the motives they are going to try to implant in their children, etc., all the while they are smoking and that smoke drifts over their children. This kind of nonsense has to stop. Again, I fully support the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Would any honourable member like to speak? There are about two minutes left before the response.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the fact that I have the opportunity to participate in this debate and to support the resolution that my colleague has put forward.

I would not characterize myself as a militant nonsmoker. However, I must say --

Mr. Mahoney: Just militant.

Mr. Wildman: Militant, yes. I must say, though, that as a person who does not smoke I have found it encouraging over the last few years to find that there seems to be in the adult population fewer and fewer people smoking in public places. We find in our transportation facilities, for instance, the situation where now there is no longer much opportunity for people to smoke. That is true also in many shopping centres and other public places.

I am concerned, though, about the fact that it seems that more and more young people are smoking at earlier ages. This is particularly true, it appears from the statistics, among young women. I think that somehow, besides moving this kind of a resolution, everyone in this House would agree that we must concentrate on more education programs to educate our young people so that we are not just setting restrictions on where people can smoke but encouraging people by giving them the proper information to make the choices that are necessary for their own good health.

I support the resolution. I commend the member for bringing it forward. I understand his feelings on this subject and I will be supporting the resolution when it comes to a vote.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to thank all members who have participated in this debate and who have listened to the debate today.

The smoking of tobacco products is probably the most preventable cause of disease that we have in Ontario and Canada. If we could convince people in Ontario and Canada to stop smoking today, then as time progressed we would have, with today’s population, 32,000 fewer deaths in a given year. Young people who are here today in the gallery should know that if they take up the habit of smoking, 35 to 40 people will die prematurely by seven years from when they would have died.

Not many of the young people of Ontario are getting that message, unfortunately, and they are taking up the habit of smoking. Smoking is a problem because it is addictive. In other words, once they start, many people cannot stop that habit during all of their lifetime.

1100

I only want to say in reply to my good friend the member for Norfolk, who represents many tobacco producers, that this legislation, in itself, does not stand alone. It does not provide compensation for tobacco producers. I agree with the member of the New Democratic Party when he says there should be increased compensation for these people. There should be retraining programs not only for producers who are farming this product but also for those who are involved in the production and manufacture of it.

I just want to read from a letter, if I have a few moments, from a woman in Ottawa-Carleton:

“I have had health problems for some time due to secondhand smoke at work. I need and like my job, but it has become obvious that if the quality of air does not improve soon, I will have to resign. I feel strongly that being forced to choose between my job and my health is an unacceptable ultimatum.”

FEDERAL HOUSING POLICY

Mr. J. B. Nixon moved resolution 49:

That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government should be condemned for its inadequate housing policy and its failure to co-operate with other levels of government in the production and preservation of housing stock.

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

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I would like to reserve the balance of my time after I have spoken for my windup.

A satisfactory housing policy that produces and preserves housing stock for all Canadians is a goal we expect from all three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. No one level of government can solve this problem. All three levels of government can solve the problem if they work in partnership.

Few activities in society are as influenced by government as shelter. “Property,” said Jeremy Bentham a long time ago, “is entirely the work of law, and when I say that, I mean property does not exist without law.”

Property relationships are legal relationships created by government. Municipalities zone land by law, service land by law and give permits by law. Provinces provide social housing by law, implement rent control and provide subsidies by law. The federal government also provides social housing by law and, through macroeconomic policy, determines the mortgage rate and the availability of capital, all by law.

I suggest that all three levels of government have to collaborate in a great national effort to ensure that a civilized country like Canada has an adequate housing policy.

On what principles, I ask, should this policy be based?

First, adequate shelter is a right, not a luxury. If shelter is not available, individuals should have a claim against society to provide that right. This right is at risk in Canada today.

Second, beyond providing a minimum level of adequate shelter, a democracy should strive to maximize the range of housing choice available to individuals. Individual circumstances change, and the housing market must be flexible to meet those changing needs. The housing market is close to failing this test. There are not enough affordable units for renters and there is not enough medium-priced housing for those who want to buy. In some metropolitan areas, housing choices are narrowing, not expanding.

Third, a democracy must provide a minimum level of shelter for its citizens and it should create the conditions conducive to providing the widest possible amount of individual choice. However, a democracy requires something further: a large core of property-owning citizens. A society with a balance of property holders increases liberty, distributes wealth and reduces dependence. Ownership of a home gives a citizen a stake in the community. In theory, a democracy can exist without a property-owning middle class, but precious few do. Ownership should be as important a goal of housing policy as social equity.

On the one hand, the government’s most important task is to prevent extreme inequality of wealth, not by taking extreme wealth away from those who possess it but by removing the barriers to accumulating wealth; not by building the poorhouses of the 19th century, but by protecting citizens from becoming poor.

On the other hand, there are conservatives who allege the right of property as the most sacred of all rights of citizens and more important in certain aspects than freedom itself. But, in fact, a liberal society goes further than establishing rights to property. It goes further by ensuring that the means of exercising those property rights are available to all citizens.

Individual rights without individual power are meaningless. A truly liberal society will ensure individual empowerment so that individuals can use their legal rights to assert their individual being within society. As a liberal society we go beyond bare articulation of individual rights by giving working men and working women an economic stake in the community over which democracy can give them political control.

For the average family, the only significant investment in their lives is in their home. It is for that reason that 40 per cent of all personal savings in Canada, or $682 billion, has been invested in housing. That is the measure of individual commitment to family housing. Trying to collectively manage the growth of an urban colossus like Metropolitan Toronto with 3.5 million people is a supremely ambitious task. Trying to provide relief to those thousands of individual Ontarians who pay more than 30 per cent of their income for shelter is a very expensive proposition.

Trying to balance the intricate market relationships of supply, demand and a collective affordability is a policy problem of immense proportions. It is a challenge to all Canadians and for all their levels of government, whether they be federal, provincial and municipal; and if collectively Canadians cannot achieve the democratic requirement of adequate shelter, who can?

The federal government, simply because it is the federal government, has broad controls over the tools of macroeconomic policy, which control and influence the housing market. If one examines the recent use of these tools by the federal government over the past few years, then one concludes that the federal government has been, at the very least, insensitive in its exercise of these economic tools upon the housing market.

Let me give members just four examples. First, the multiple-unit residential building tax incentive program, commonly known as the MURB program, which stimulated rental housing production by allowing individual investors the tax benefit of all investment in rental housing, has been cancelled.

Second, the registered home ownership savings plan, which allowed new home buyers a tax incentive to save the down payment for the purchase of their first-time home, has been eliminated. This means that the hard-to-save-for first-time home is harder to save for, and the federal government has made it so.

Third, the Bank of Canada’s high interest rate, which is supported by the federal Minister of Finance, adds annually thousands of dollars to the cost of first-time home buyer’s first-time mortgage and first-time mortgage financing.

Fourth, we already know that the beneficiaries of the federal government’s tax reform are the high-income earners. The victims of tax reform will be new home buyers, who will see the price of new homes rise by approximately nine per cent, according to the Canadian Home Builders’ Association. The Canadian home builders’ report, entitled A Bleak outlook in the New Housing Sector, concludes that this increased cost will put the possibility of buying a new home out of reach for some 60,000 potential first-time home buyers. The federal government’s proposal would impose an average monthly rent increase for new renters of new apartments of about 13 per cent.

1110

At one time, the federal government was the driving force behind both market and social housing in this nation. In previous decades, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. was a vehicle for reform, but in Ontario today the federal government clearly takes a back seat to the province and to the municipalities. On the market side, the federal government does little more than insure mortgages. On the social side, Ottawa has, since 1985, decided to subsidize only the core needy, only the people with the very lowest incomes, and it does precious little of that.

In 1985, Toronto’s own Globe and Mail noted that the federal government cut its national allocation of 22,500 units of assisted housing to 20,000 that year. It was the beginning of a trend. It further noted that allocations for nonprofits -- both private nonprofits run by church groups, service groups and social agencies and nonprofit co-operatives -- totalled only 719 units in Metropolitan Toronto and York region, whereas in 1981 to 1983 the federal government had averaged 2,377 annually, It concluded already in 1985 that the allocation for the Toronto area had dropped in two years to less than one third of what it was in 1982.

We should note in addition that until 1985, the federal government was the funding agency for private nonprofits and co-ops, whereas the province was funding municipal housing units only. In 1986, a federal-provincial agreement dictated by the federal government prescribed that the federal government funding of the federal-provincial nonprofit program be cut from 90 per cent of each unit to 50 per cent of each unit. And if members think the situation was depressing in 1985, let’s carry it through three years to 1988.

In 1985-86, the federal government, as I said, funded 90 per cent of the federal-provincial program to build 5,178 units in Ontario. At that time the province, independently of the federal government, built 3,473 assisted rental housing units. This year, in 1988-89, the federal government will contribute only 50 per cent of an estimated 7,059 rental housing units. The province will pick up the other 50 per cent, not just 10 per cent as it did in 1984. In 1988-89, the province will fund, on its own, the construction of an estimated 11,125 assisted rental housing units. Thus, in four fiscal years, federal unit funding has decreased 32 per cent, whereas provincial unit funding has increased 367 per cent.

Federal policies are strangling co-op housing projects, which are owned and run by the residents. Last year the federal government financed only 126 co-operative units in Metropolitan Toronto, earmarking just 37 of them for low-income earners.

It almost need not be said again: it is a pretty depressing story. It was said in the provincial government’s recent report entitled More Than Just a Roof: Action to End Homelessness in Ontario:

“The enormous social costs of failing to provide decent affordable housing for those who need it cannot be too strongly emphasized. Money spent to provide social services, employment training and education will have little or no impact on improving opportunities for low-income families unless their housing situation is secure. Our society will continue to spend vast amounts of money treating the effects of homelessness, without ever ministering to the cause.”

I can tell members this from very personal experience visiting some of the shelters in this city. I have met people, youths who are uneducated or short on education, who need skills training and who need medical attention. But they do not have a home, they do not have a telephone they can answer and give out when they are applying for a job, when they are looking for medical care, when they are looking for skills training. They know what they need: they need a place to stay; they need a home of whatever sort can be found.

Not only is the federal government cutting back on funds for social services, employment training and education but, more important for purposes of this debate, it is cutting back on funds for housing. No one knows how much land the federal government owns, but let’s be clear: the federal government is the biggest land owner in the country. Recent news reports by David Israelson of the Toronto Star confirm a source at Canada Post evaluating the total worth of Canada Post properties alone in the Metro area at a conservative $700 million. What do we hear in June 1988 but that Canada Post is putting up prime real estate for sale at prime value. The notice read, “Canada Post Corp. is inviting proposals from proponents interested in developing a prime 38.7-acre site.”

These prime lands have been declared surplus to the operations of Canada Post. The surplus is being disposed of on the private market. None of the lands will be dedicated to assisted housing, affordable housing, co-op housing or any other form of affordable shelter.

Canada Post could transfer the real properties to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. for assisted housing initiatives. That is what the provincial ministry has asked for. The Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp. and the Ontario government protested to the federal government, saying it had a moral obligation to help the citizens who cannot afford current rents and housing prices, but to no avail. As of today, Canada Post’s strategy of profit maximization and the federal government’s lack of intervention to assert its social responsibility continue unabated.

When the federal government finally did release some surplus lands for housing, the lands at the Canadian Forces Base Downsview, it demonstrated no understanding of what it had embarked upon. There were no prior discussions with the province or the local municipality. There is no commitment to affordable housing on this site. The mayor of North York quite properly raised questions as to who is going to fund the incredible costs of the infrastructure. There were no prior discussions with the mayor as to the appropriateness of the location, the plan for development or the style of development that would occur. These questions remain unanswered and the project remains in a vacuum for one single reason: a lack of federal government commitment to moving from the bald statement to the physical reality of affordable housing.

These simple promises cannot be delivered upon without hard work. A genuine partnership of federal, provincial and municipal governments must be built. The federal government has not committed to that.

Finally, and perhaps most important of all, there is the question of attitude. Problems do not solve themselves. People can begin to solve problems only when they believe there is a problem that needs a solution. Every member of this provincial Legislature knows there is a problem in the housing market. Traditionally, the federal government has been a partner and, indeed, a leader with the province in solving this problem. Many members will agree that the federal government has abandoned the partnership.

The federal government will not be a willing part of the solution until it acknowledges that there is a problem, yet look at its track record. Since 1984 there has been only a part-time Secretary of State (Housing) until recently, days before the election was called by the Prime Minister, the federal government appointed a minister. When asked about the homeless situation, Mr. McDermid said: “The homeless have shelter in Canada. They can always get off the street and find a warm place to sleep and be taken care of on a temporary basis.” I ask Mr. McDermid to tour some of our urban centres and tell me if that is true.

When asked about the federal government’s housing policy, he said, without a hint of doubt: “I feel very comfortable with the housing policy we have. We believe we are on the right track.” I say they are on the right track to more homeless and more inadequate housing policy.

When asked about shelter for street people, he said -- and members should listen to this, they will enjoy this one – “There is no excuse for anyone not finding a roof over their head. When we look at the so-called street people, it is not just the lack of hostels. Other factors are involved. Some of these people are free spirits and love to live that lifestyle.” I say tell that to the homeless.

Come election time, we do hear promises. The Prime Minister says, “In a country like ours it strikes me as completely offensive morally to have people sleeping on the bloody sidewalks.” Listen, I agree with the Prime Minister, but what has Mr. Mulroney done about it? Absolutely nothing. Mr. Mulroney says he has the answer. He had the answer when he said, “We all have to collaborate in a great national effort to ensure that this does not happen in a civilized country like Canada.”

Well, it is happening. It has happened. What has he done about it? Nothing. The federal government has done nothing to ensure that individuals have a range of housing choices and it has done nothing to assist individuals in the assertion of their right to exercise that choice. It is for these reasons that I ask this Legislature to join with me in a condemnation of the federal government for its inadequate housing policy and its failure to co-operate with other levels of government in the production and preservation of housing stock.

1120

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: I am going to support the resolution this morning, but I have a little apprehension here. I am taking a little tour on the wild side, I know, and I am hanging out this morning with a group of folks whose track record itself is not exactly immaculate.

I am going to set aside whatever differences I might have with this government and its approach to housing. I agree, basically, that them is no denying the historical fact that, about a decade or so ago, all three levels of government were interested in and active in, the area of providing decent housing for our citizens. Then, for reasons which escape me totally, the federal and the provincial governments, virtually at the same time, decided to abandon that as being anything that was their responsibility. That meant for the other level of government, at the municipal level, the supply of new housing stock that was provided in any way, shape or form by a level of government was virtually crippled.

I sense that, in part, what we are dealing with this morning, in a strange way, is the federal election. I do not deny the validity of the motion that is before us today. I have seen some small moves that might be called hypocrisy in other quarters. They will not be called that here this morning; but I did find it passing strange, that for all of the discussion of a housing crisis that has taken place in Canada over the last few years, it took them until two weeks before they decided to call an election for the federal government of Canada to decide that they ought to have a Minister of Housing. That is aside from whether he was actually going to do anything or not. They did not even think it was important enough to have one, until they thought about an election.

I would like to point out that for those of us who have been active in trying to help community groups, municipalities, the many in our society who provide housing needs, mostly in the nonprofit sector, who have had the opportunity to work with the federal government of Canada in securing mortgages, for example, it is not an easy task. Each time that I got involved with a group in my community to secure funding from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. for a nonprofit housing project in my area, we knew that we were going to war. We knew that we did not have any friends in Ottawa. We knew that we would do battle with them every day. We knew that, no matter how many forms we filled out for them, they would have another one. We knew that no matter how much information we gave them, they would want more. We knew that, no matter how many times we asked them: “Who owns this building? We know it is the government of Canada. We know that CMHC has title to the property. Who has the deed?” They would never be able to answer a tough question like that.

I know that in my riding, for two years, a building that was already up and was vacant was argued about, because CMHC could not decide which of their regional offices had the mortgage to this property. We wrote letters back and forth, as my federal member did; we visited with them, as they say; we talked with our community group, which was trying to put in a co-operative in an empty building; finally, we did find out that one office had the deed, and they transferred it to another office, so we were able to convert an empty building, which is actually quite a nice one, into a co-op unit.

But it took two years of argument and battle, and the resources of a federal member of Parliament and a provincial member of parliament, and a nonprofit co-op group in my community to make that happen. It was clear to us that the federal government was not on our side. They were our enemies. We battled with them.

I think there is a measure of truth here, that the federal government has lots of land. If they really wanted to, without providing direct funding, they could certainly guarantee a lot of mortgage money to build low-cost housing in Canada, if they chose to, but they do not. They could surely provide some assistance in startup costs, but they do not. They have the agencies in place that know all about real estate, development and building, and they could be a tremendous asset in trying to combat what many of us think is clearly a crisis; but they choose not to.

Now let me not pass without mentioning for a moment or two that the provincial government in Ontario cannot exactly throw a whole lot of rocks at the federal government. Granted it started from scratch a couple of years ago, granted the problems are not easy, but there are some things that I think the government should have accomplished by now. I think in three years’ time it should have been able to figure out just exactly how much land it owns. I do not think that is impossible.

I think that in three years’ time it could have figured out what works and what does not work, because in this country we have tried a lot of things, from what essentially might be called in some quarters bribing people to provide housing, to giving away money to people who had already bought a house, to allowing people to do tax write-offs on investments. We know that some of these things, however attractive they might have looked initially, do not work.

We also know what does work. We have enough experience now to know that when a level of government -- at any level -- sets its mind to providing affordable housing, it can do that. It can do that on a scale that is really quite impressive. If it really wanted to, the province of Ontario, by itself, could solve its own housing problem, but it does not want to. It owns 90 per cent of the land mass in the province. The putting together of land for housing is not its problem. It has the ability to finance projects, not give the money directly, but lend its support, its financial weight to finance projects on a scale that absolutely boggles the mind. If you multiply that by 10, you have some concept of the ability of the federal government to be a participant in resolving this problem.

I want to conclude by saying that it is easy this morning -- and I hope we will have some such comment because it is fun -- to do numbers on the federal government for being absolutely, totally incompetent and part of the major problem that has created a housing crisis in Canada. We should not forget that. They do deserve to be booted around the block time and time again for living in mansions in Ottawa while people in Toronto live in cardboard boxes, because that is the truth.

Mr. Jackson: You mean the kind of house John Turner lives in?

Mr. Breaugh: It is true that John Turner lives in a similar kind of house in Ottawa.

Mr. Jackson: And in Toronto.

Mr. Breaugh: The only one who had to buy his own was Ed Broadbent.

Mr. Jackson: That is right.

Mr. Breaugh: But that is not the point. The point is that if we really wanted to solve a housing crisis, it is absolutely true that governments in this country could do so and they are choosing not to.

It is true that it will not work or it will be more difficult to do unless all the levels of government that we have participate. Unless they all get their act together and go in the same direction, it is not going to work. It is fine for the brand-new federal Minister of Housing to announce rather grandly that a big chunk of property in Toronto is going to be made available for housing, but it is absolutely untrue to say that is going to happen unless he had the brains to talk to the mayor of that municipality, and he did not; and unless he had the common sense to talk to the provincial government and he did not. It is absolutely true that nothing is going to happen there for at least three, four or five years, if then. If the government wanted to, it could, but it is choosing not to.

I want to conclude by saying that it really is disgusting that there are enough people around with brains, knowledge and political experience, that we could resolve this problem, not overnight but in short order. It is sad to say that in this rich society, the people who drive around in the limousines do not give a damn about the people who live in cardboard boxes, but it is true. It is also true that people at the lower end of the economic scale are now seen to be the tax cows for governments. That is disgusting.

Is it not reasonable that the big corporations in the land ought to pay at least as much income tax as secretaries who work in offices, as factory workers who make things for us, as farmers? But it is true? Is it not also true that we all know in this chamber this morning, and I sense in the federal parliament and on municipal councils that we have a major problem on our hands that affects everybody, in a different way, but everybody?

It is true, oddly enough, and I agree with the Toronto Real Estate Board, that a relevant question these days is, “Where will our children live? Who can afford to buy a house? Who can afford to rent a house? Where will it be?” I think our society is coming together to realize that we at least have a problem here. Now is the time for governments at all levels to stop bellyaching about it and to get their respective acts together and to resolve it.

It is not a bad idea this morning to start with some mild criticism of the federal government of Canada because it surely deserves it. When we have done that, perhaps Ontario and each of our municipalities could do their fair share in resolving that problem. If we did it, the problem would not go away overnight but it would not stay with us quite as long.

1130

Mr. Cureatz: It gives me a great deal of privilege to stand this morning to speak on this resolution and following my colleague and next-door neighbour in my area the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).

I want to say how frustrating it is to have a mere, humble 10 minutes because I can tell members, as wont as I am from time to time to go on at great length about this resolution, I have to say, of course, the people at home who are tuning in are probably not doing so at this live performance, of which there are so many people in attendance and not very many Liberals, I might add, who have 94 seats. If they felt so strongly about this resolution, there would be Liberals packed in these chambers to condemn --

Mr. J. B. Nixon: We’ll be here to vote.

Mr. Cureatz: Well the people of Ontario made their fine decision to only select 17 of us, and there are a number of responsibilities in these chambers, as the member well knows -- to attend committees, etc. etc. Those guys were elected. They have got the huge majority. Where the heck are they all to support this resolution? I say to the people at home, I am digressing a little bit.

Mr. Fleet: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cureatz: Some of them might catch this.

Mr. Fleet: Mr. Speaker, there have been previous rulings in this House about commentary on the absence of members, and I raise that as a point of order. It has been ruled on, on a Thursday morning in particular, I recall, when private members’ business is being conducted. I would ask that be drawn to the attention of the honourable member last speaking.

Mr. Cureatz: Well, I will add another minute onto my diatribe, Mr. Speaker, since that is hardly a point of order. If the member would read his standing orders he would know that.

I say to the people at home, and I remind members that some of them might be catching this later this evening on the repeat as they are changing channels. I will bring them up to date on what this is all about. The member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon) has introduced a resolution condemning the federal government on its housing policy.

Well, this has nothing to do with the honourable member personally. I have nothing but the highest respect for him. We have sat on a number of committees together. On the insurance bill in the standing committee on administration of justice, I have to say he did his homework and did an admirable job.

But on this resolution, I have to say that my colleague who has brought forward this resolution is out to lunch. I would be able to say, over the number of years when we sat in the government and dealt with the federal Liberals when they were in power there was lack of leadership in the housing industry. Goodly enough, he comes forward with this resolution. It is a catch-all. I caught a bit of him on television before I came up here to give my speech and I will say the honourable member was full of statistics. He could not reach out into his speech and say, “Well, this is what we are condemning the federal government about right here.”

The people at home would be turning him off so fast because, quite frankly, he did not make a lot of sense. The people at home, let me tell them why this resolution was really brought in. Let’s talk about the politics of this place. I will tell them why it was brought in. We are in the midst of a federal election and there had to be some kind of negotiations from the front bench, the four people who really run it over here, with John Turner. They said: “Listen, John, you are not looking too bad in the polls now. Let’s help you out a little bit. We are going to see who the next private member’s resolution is and we are going to condemn the federal Tories for the housing policy, That is a little political payoff that we are going to do.”

It has nothing to do about how the member feels about it. I will tell them why I know that is what has happened because it happened to me 10 years ago. I got a call from Bud Gregory after my first year sitting way over there right where “Baloney” is. He found me at the Benmiller Inn with my wife so we could have five days of vacation together. There is Bud three days later phoning me. He said, “Sam, the Premier wants you to reply to the speech from the throne.” Well, what did I know way back then? I did not know anything about the speech from the throne, I have to tell the members, just like this new member does not know anything.

I said, “Okay, I’ll do that.” And do you know what? As a matter of fact, I even wrote my own speech and gave it to Dave Surplis who was running the show, and he gave it back vetted. He said, “That’s what you say.” I got up and read it. I did not like what was there, but I went ahead anyway. I said to myself, “I’ve just been bamboozled.” And that is what has happened to him. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) came up and said, “Brad, we’ve got a little speech for you to make. We have got to try to help John Turner win some more seats in Ontario. We want to come out. Who knows? I want to leave my options open so I can run” -- oh, the member over here from Niagara is laughing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: The truth is, I say to the people at home, this is real politics and this is what is happening with this resolution, because if the truth be known -- and I only have about four minutes and 30 seconds -- I would be talking about what the Liberals are doing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member will address his remarks through the chair, please.

Mr. Cureatz: Let’s talk about what the Liberals are doing and then about the housing policy.

Here, they are condemning the federal government. Holy smokes, I have reams of it here. I could spend all delightful morning discussing what they are not doing. And do you know the first thing that comes to mind? Passing the dollar. Have you heard about that one? You know, passing the dollar. We heard about it on Sunday shopping. And you wait until we start going on that one when it finally gets in here and you people have enough gumption to close it in committee. We will hear all about Sunday shopping and passing it to the municipalities.

This resolution is doing the same thing because a good part of the problem lies right here. Why does he not stand up and say, “Let’s condemn the federal and provincial and municipal governments about housing”? Let’s be truthful about this. Let’s not cast a net across the whole federal scene.

I agree with my colleague, the member for Oshawa. I fight with the feds all the time and I fight with the provincial people and the municipal people; as we all do. But, no, he comes rolling in -- and I feel sorry for you. And do you know what, Brad? I am embarrassed for you, and you have learned your lesson. You know what? They will not respect you, those four guys. Do you think you are going to get into cabinet doing this? No way. They just used you as a filler and the Premier can phone up Turner and say, “Listen. We did it. Okay, you owe me one.” And we will see what happens. If they make it, the Premier will have a few IOUs. If they do not make it, you have been used and your hopes for cabinet are finished, because when the election comes, I will tell you, it will not matter a hoot; you are on your own, and you would be far better bringing something about the concerns that you have for your constituents in your own riding than this catch-all policy.

Do you want to talk about passing the buck? Here is the Hamilton Spectator, I do not think well-known as a great bastion of Toryism. The editorial of the Spectator talks about the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins). Do you know what they did, according to the Spectator? “They performed a political miracle by passing the buck to municipalities. If the cabinet is reckless enough to approve this cynical scam, local taxpayers will have to clean up the provincial government’s mess on the housing crisis in Ontario.

“As the minister has made clear, the municipalities had better solve it or Queen’s Park will punish them. And if Ontario wants the municipalities to rescue the victims of bad,” bad, bad -- I added the two extra “bads” -- “provincial housing policy, let Ontario give them the money they’ll need for the job.”

Where are you people solving the housing crisis? Are you are coming in -- well, I am so happy that my colleague has made it back from the other side of the world to come back to reality here in these chambers. And what else have they had to say about the housing policies of the Liberal government?

The editorial in the Windsor Star, away at the other end of the province: “What is also disturbing about the province’s plan is that it has committed no new money to assist municipalities with the cost of additional sewers, utilities and other services they might be forced to install as part of a requirement to have a two-year supply of available residential building lots on hand.

“What the Ontario government is trying to do is to sell a little more than it made for the Toronto solution.” They are passing the dollar again. And what does my colleague come out with? He comes out with a catch-all net to try to condemn the federal government. I have 34 seconds left.

I have a caption of overviews of major groups, housing, rental and landlords, who condemn the provincial policies here about housing. I could go on at great length about our star Minister of Housing, the great and wonderful rising star and how she has fallen flat. She has not performed to expectations. All kinds of great and wonderful editorials; we can go on with the headlines.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you have not gathered yet, I will not be supporting this resolution.

1140

Mr. Fleet: I would first like to congratulate the honourable member for York Mills who gave a particularly thoughtful, detailed and well-reasoned speech, which was also hard-hitting and I thought ample justification to support this resolution, as I will do.

When one considers the speech from the honourable member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), he never once defended in the whole ten-minute diatribe, although it was lively and entertaining, the inaction or the activities of the federal government. After all, the resolution deals with the federal government.

In this speech, what I will be doing is touching on some of the examples of the Mulroney government record, and secondly, looking at some of the alternatives that could and should have been done, and with some luck, the next federal government under John Turner will carry out. Certainly, the national Liberal alternatives deal with co-operation between governments, having a national housing strategy, providing help for those who need it most, and in addition to that, help for first-time home buyers.

The Mulroney government’s approach to housing policy can be very easily summed up as a washing of federal hands and a transferring of almost all of the responsibility to the provinces. Clearly, Mulroney and his government have no belief in the need for a national housing strategy or national leadership.

In fact, the members here will be astonished to learn that at a very significant public debate during the federal election, which occurred in Toronto last night, we had a representative from the New Democratic Party present, and John Nunziata ably represented the Liberal party position, but oddly enough, not one, single Conservative federal candidate could be found who would show up at the meeting. Let alone what he might say, they were not even willing to come to the meeting. That is an astonishing development in the middle of a federal election.

We should not be too surprised. After all, in the 1984 election, we had a campaign where Mulroney made hundreds of promises, one of which was to strengthen and expand co-operative housing programs. Right after that election and contrary to the promise he made, they cut back on funding for co-operatives and introduced new policies that effectively reduced the number of co-op units from 5,500 units a year to only 3,200 units a year.

In addition, the proportion of units that received low-income rent supplements fell from 42 to 30 per cent. Despite a waiting list of 17,000 persons for subsidized housing in 1987, the Conservative co-op program funded just 126 units in the Metropolitan Toronto area, of which 37 were earmarked for low income families.

Between 1984 and 1987, federal capital funding for housing, perhaps the most important single source of federal funding, was cut by 61 per cent. It is an astonishing reality of Conservative priorities -- shameful indeed. During the same period, grants and subsidies under the residential rehabilitation assistance program, known as RRAP, were rapped very hard and cut from $202 million to $131 million, a 35 per cent slash.

Between 1984 and 1987, the total subsidies and grants budget for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. fell 13 per cent, from $1.7 billion to just under $1.5 billion. Cumulatively, these funding cuts totalled $606 million from 1984. An astonishing development occurred in 1986. That was the year when for the first time ever, federal spending on social housing actually fell. Never before had that occurred under any prior government.

One might well ask, what was being planned in 1988 by CMHC? Indeed, it is a very good question. The answer is that their corporate plan says the federal government intends to withdraw completely from funding of capital costs for joint federal-provincial public housing projects. It is really astonishing that they would want to pull right out.

I do not want to be unfair to the Conservatives. They say they want to put more emphasis on the rent supplement program. Of course, they intend to cut back everywhere else in the nonprofit sector in order to do that. Even if they do add money for rent supplements, it does not add one cent, it does not add one little bit of assistance to people who need new affordable housing units to be built.

Another thing one would undoubtedly find astonishing about the Conservatives federally is that when they bring out all of their wonderful papers, in over four years there is not a single mention of the word “homeless” in all their housing papers. They have put out lots of papers, but they are not interested in dealing with the homeless.

Although it was mentioned earlier by the member for York Mills, I think the comment made by John McDermid, Mulroney’s Minister of State (Housing), bears repeating. When he was asked about shelter for street people, he said: “There is no excuse for anyone not finding a roof over their head. When we look at the so-called street people” -- just “so-called” somehow -- “it is not just a lack of hostels. Other factors are involved. Some of these people are free spirits and love to live that lifestyle.”

McDermid is so insensitive, so uncaring, that he seems to think the homeless are lucky to be without shelter, that they are lucky to be without a home. That is an absolutely disgusting approach for them to take in the federal government, a total lack of moral direction, a total lack of guidance in this nation.

Since the time I am allowed does not permit me to touch on all the initiatives of the provincial government, I will only use one example. It is a perfect example of the contrast in styles between the provincial Liberals and the federal Conservatives.

We have St. Lawrence Square. We recently announced that we will be involved heavily, in co-operation with the city of Toronto, in redeveloping underutilized industrial lands. It is a $1.2-billion contribution. We might ask, what are the feds going to do? The short answer is that they are going to sell the land at top dollar. They are not going to provide any help at all. When some 5,000 families move in, they should be well aware that the federal government did not provide a nickel to help house those people.

The Downsview airport fiasco has already been mentioned earlier, but I think one should consider the views of Mayor Mel Lastman. Mayor Lastman is a well-known Conservative. He is also known, of course, for quiet understatement. What does he say? Since his community was supposed to be helped, he said, “This housing project is fantasy land, an obvious election ploy that will never get off the ground.” He has condemned his own party; he has condemned the federal Tories, and rightly so.

What about the Liberal alternatives? What has been announced? What should have been done by these terrible Tories?

For example, there has been an announcement by John Turner, in my riding of High Park-Swansea I might add, an announcement that would very much help the people who live in my riding, of relief for hard-hit renters with a refundable tax credit for all households with renters paying more than 30 per cent of their income on housing needs, to a maximum of $2,500 per year which would be refundable; direct assistance even for people who are not paying income tax, graduated to increase with the number of children in the family; advanced monthly, so payments would be available to help people meet the rent. No red tape, because it would be reconcilable with annual income tax returns. It would be direct assistance, not just in Ontario but across all of Canada, to some 1.2 million Canadians.

The Liberals have also announced they would reintroduce the registered home ownership program, cut off quite improperly by the Tories. It is exactly what we need to help people buy their first home. It would be a way people could save up to $2,000 per year for 10 years, with a maximum tax credit of 25 per cent of the savings.

The list goes on. We have things like a federal audit of lands, to identify them. Those surplus lands, under the Liberals, would be dedicated to affordable housing purposes. We want to increase the core-need targeting of the RRAP funds I referred to earlier; a doubling of nonprofit and co-operative units allocated annually to 40,000 per year; a commitment to spend $5 billion over five years for program cost-sharing with provincial and municipal governments to rebuild roads, to add sewers, to do all the things that are necessary; to eliminate substandard housing on native reserves; to provide a three-tiered comprehensive strategy for emergency relief-, preventive measures and long-term solutions for people who are homeless.

These are the positive initiatives the federal Liberals will do, and that is why I support, and encourage all of us to support, this resolution.

1150

Mr. Laughren: May I first of all commend the member for York Mills for his resolution and the way he unblushingly carries on the federal election campaign here in this provincial chamber, but I did enjoy his speech, as I did that of the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet).

I drink I appreciated the rather philosophic bent of the member for York Mills, particularly his comment at the beginning of his speech that he regarded housing as a right in Canada and that it was strange that the Conservatives have always talked about entrenching property rights in the Constitution, but never housing. I think that speaks volumes about a social attitude by the federal, and I might add, the provincial Conservatives.

I must say, however, that I do understand the member for York Mills. I am sure that before he prepared his speech -- I’m sure he did not allow anyone to prepare it for him; I do not, believe anybody else could have written that speech other than the member for York Mills.

An hon. member: Well done.

Mr. Laughren: Well, you can interpret that in whatever way you want, but I really do believe the member for York Mills sat back and said to himself, “You know, I think the best defence is a good offence,” because to defend his own government’s record on housing would be extremely difficult. It is much, much easier to go and attack the federal Tories on their housing programs than it is to defend the indefensible housing programs of the Ontario Ministry of Housing.

I mean, here in the province of Ontario we have 10,000 homeless in the city of Toronto, they tell me, and 20,000 across the province, if those numbers are still accurate, and yet we have a Minister of Housing who I understand did not even spend all of her social housing budget last year. She did not even spend all that was allocated to her by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). What kind of concern is that for those people who most desperately need housing when the minister does not even spend all that is appropriately allocated to her ministry? It makes no sense whatsoever. It is almost like a contradiction.

A couple of years ago, we had a very severe housing problem in Sudbury, and I can recall one family living in a motel room while there was a house owned by CMHC -- it had been repossessed, as I recall, by CMHC -- that was empty while a family lived in a motel. There were a number of us who discovered one morning that the padlock on the door had been cut and that the door was indeed open, and so we helped the family move into the CMHC house. Well, you should have heard the screaming, by the Tories especially, that we had invaded someone’s private property. They seemed to think there was some kind of logic that there was an empty house sitting there owned by the state, while you had a family with kids living in a motel room. If members saw those two things, I think most reasonable people in our society would say that there is something wrong, and therefore a group of us moved the family into the empty house.

By the way, members do not need to dwell on the problems of urban housing in this province. I would invite members to visit northern Indian reserves in this province and take a look at the quality of housing in the north. I know that some members have done that. As members, they will come back, I think, changed people. Perhaps that is stating it a little strongly, but it is a profound experience to visit the small Indian reserves at James Bay, Hudson Bay, up north of Pickle Lake in the northwest. It is truly a profound experience.

At some point, we as a society are going to have to recognize our responsibilities there. At this point, we have not done that. I know nothing gives the two senior levels of government more enjoyment, almost a malicious enjoyment it seems, than the game of jurisdictional ping-pong they play with our native people on questions of housing. You should hear the way they talk, and the native people in the far north are the victims of that jurisdictional ping-pong.

It would not be appropriate if I did not say in this debate that the federal New Democrats have a housing policy. I agree with the member for York Mills that the federal Tories are sadly lacking in their attitude towards housing. I will not requote the federal Minister of State (Housing), Mr. McDermid, in his comments about housing, but I thought it would be appropriate in the time remaining to put on the record a few of the things federal New Democrats believe.

A New Democratic government would quickly convene a housing action summit of private and public sector actors, including nonprofit housing developers and private developers, housing advocates and all three levels of government. The federal New Democrat would increase the federal commitment to nonprofit and co-op housing to 50,000 units per year, at least 10,000 of which would be co-op units. A $10-million fund will be created to help organizations that provide shelter to the homeless and an additional 1,000 units a year would be allocated for native housing.

We would use federal lands for affordable housing. The federal government would sell part of its significant landholdings for housing development, with the provision that at least 50 per cent of the housing be affordable for low- and middle-income families. We would have a sensible tax policy. We have condemned the Conservatives’ $100,000 capital gains tax exemption for fuelling completely unproductive speculation in the housing market.

Further, we would not proceed with the Conservative government’s intention of applying the new federal sales tax to housing, which would increase the price of a $ 100,000 home. Of course, I know talking about a $100,000 home in Metropolitan Toronto is fanciful, but for those people who do still live in a world of $100,000 homes, it could increase the price of that home by as much as $9,000. Here we have the federal government, the federal Tories, if they get their way, determined to go ahead with this new federal sales tax that would put that kind of interest on the cost of housing.

The provincial government’s hands are not clean either. Here we have the Treasurer and the Premier refusing to take any action whatsoever on the rapidly escalating price of homes in Metropolitan Toronto. I never thought I would see the day when the average price of a resale home in Metro was $189 short of $250,000; $249,811 is the average price of a resale home in Metropolitan Toronto for the month of October 1988. As long as this government is content to simply throw stones at the federal government and not put in place a sensible housing program of its own, it too stands condemned.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Mills has reserved two minutes.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I would like to assure the members opposite, in particular one member, that indeed I wrote the speech. No one asked me to write it; it was not vetted by anyone. I wrote it and I spoke and put it before the House because I thought it had to be said. It is obvious to me that it is an important issue and an issue the federal government has not taken seriously,

I can give just one brief example. If you go to downtown Toronto, you will find young men and young women who have medical problems, who have not completed their education, who need skills training, and the federal government has cut back on the budgets for medical care, for education, for skills training. But what those people will tell you is that first of all, before they get their skills training, their health care and their education, they need a place to stay.

If you look at where they are staying, you will find they are staying in a warehouse that is unheated. They get a cup of coffee in the morning and then they are thrown out on the street. If members do not think that is a problem that should be spoken to in this House, a problem that should be spoken to in this election, then I ask them what should be spoken to?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Finally, I would point out that the federal government has committed to the production of the exact sum total of 37 co-op units this year in the city of Toronto; that is all the federal government has committed to. Province-wide, the provincial government has committed to over 3,000. I think the record is clear. I think the federal government has done nothing other than demonstrate an inadequate policy and also a complete failure to co-operate with other levels of government in establishing an adequate housing policy.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the discussion time for private members’ public business. We will now deal with resolution 39, Mr. Sterling’s motion for second reading of Bill 157.

12:06

MUNICIPAL SMOKING BY-LAW AUTHORIZATION ACT

The House divided on Mr. Sterling’s motion for second reading of Bill 157, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Allen, Ballinger, Black, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Campbell, Charlton, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cureatz, Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Eves, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Furlong, Grier, Hart, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kanter, Keyes,

Laughren, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Martel, Matrundola, McClelland, Morin, Nixon, J. B., Owen, Philip, E., Pollock, Poole, Rae, B., Ruprecht, Sola, South, Sterling, Stoner, Villeneuve, Wildman, Wilson.

Nays

Ferraro, Miller, Roberts, Tatham.

Ayes 53; nays 4.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

1216

FEDERAL HOUSING POLICY

The House divided on Mr. J. B. Nixon’s motion of resolution 49, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Allen, Ballinger, Black, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Campbell, Charlton, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Furlong, Grier, Henderson, Johnston, R. F., Kanter, Keyes, Laughren, Lipsett, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Martel, Matrundola, McClelland, Miller, Morin, Morin-Strom, Nixon, J. B., Owen, Philip, E., Poole, Rae, B., Roberts, Ruprecht, Sola, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Tatham, Wildman, Wilson.

Nays

Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Eves, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Pollock, Sterling, Villeneuve.

Ayes 49; nays 9.

The House recessed at 12:20 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

Mr. Wildman: Ever since the federal Conservatives initiated negotiations with the Reagan administration on a so-called free trade deal, the New Democrats in this House have been pressing the provincial Liberals for action to protect the interests of Ontario. Instead, what we have received from the government is a lot of election rhetoric and subsequent promises, but complete inaction.

When after some considerable period of delay the government introduced so-called anti-free trade legislation last June, we looked at the legislation and hoped it would in fact show that the provincial administration was determined to protect Ontario’s interests.

When the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) finally introduced An Act respecting transfers of Water, he made a speech saying it closed the door on the export of water from the provincial drainage basin. At that time, I responded by saying we supported this in principle and would be having to look at the bill to analyse it to determine whether or not it did that.

As members know, we have subsequently analysed the bill and found it wanting. We have suggested amendments to the minister that would close the door on exports of water. We have yet to see whether the minister is prepared to accept those amendments. All he has said is he would accept amendments which are appropriate.

It is completely inappropriate for this government to want to license the export of any water from the provincial drainage basin.

CIVIL SERVANTS’ LEGAL FEES

Mr. Runciman: In the light of the failure of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) to respond to some very serious matters I raised with him last week in respect of the government funding of a crown employee’s lawsuit against the Church of Scientology and the Globe and Mail, I would like to put some of the facts on the record. This supposedly open government refused to provide information on this matter until compelled to do so under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In February 1988, the chief administrative officer of the criminal law division of the Ministry of the Attorney General clearly indicated in writing that he did not want the use of government funds financing a private lawsuit to be easily identified. He suggested they be allocated to accounts other than those associated with the office where the individual filing the lawsuit worked. As a result, the expenditure was listed in a travel/claims account, thereby making it virtually impossible for anyone perusing the ministry’s accounts to detect the real reason for the expenditure.

Is that an appropriate or justifiable accounting procedure? I doubt that any accountant worth his salt would think so, and it should be cause for concern to a minister responsible for overseeing government expenditures. The minister has not shown that concern, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I was advised yesterday by the Provincial Auditor’s office that within the next six months the auditor will review the appropriateness of this creative accounting and report to the Legislature. Perhaps then this minister’s efforts to obscure the facts from public view through obfuscation and personal insults will come back to haunt him and his government. I am looking forward to that day.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Faubert: I wish to commend the government for showing leadership in transportation issues in the greater Toronto area. Members will recall that last May the provincial government announced new transportation directions for the greater Toronto area. I am pleased to note the significant progress already made in starting many of the proposed projects.

A centrepiece of the plan, greater fare integration of the provincial GO Transit network with Metro’s Toronto Transit Commission, is already well under way. With the recent announcement of Twin Pass sales at all Metro GO Transit stations, commuters in Toronto now have both transit options more conveniently available. I understand that sales of the passes well exceed initially projected figures.

Expansion of the GO Transit network is and will be taking place both east and west of Metro. I have saved the best for last. In a recent letter to TTC chairman Jeff Lyons, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) indicated this government’s willingness to proceed with financial assistance for the necessary first steps to define and protect the Sheppard subway corridor, all of it from Yonge Street through to the Scarborough City Centre. In doing so, the minister has exceeded Metro’s request in setting the Yonge to Victoria Park Avenue corridor as its first priority.

With this move, the provincial government has acknowledged that, in planning a major transportation corridor such as this, one cannot simply draw a line on the map and proceed. A project of this magnitude takes careful planning and requires the necessary first steps in protecting the corridor.

I commend the government and the minister for leadership in transportation in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

NOTRE DAME HIGH SCHOOL

Ms. Bryden: I would like to draw to the attention of the House that we have with us in the gallery today one of the largest groups of students ever to visit the House together. They are 120 students from Notre Dame High School in my riding.

I congratulate their teacher, Joe Pacione, on bringing such a large group to visit the Legislature in order to give them a view of where and how our laws are made.

I am sure they will be interested in our discussion today on things connected particularly with education, and I hope that they will hear some commitments to further increases in educational grants so that we can have modem, 20th-century education in all our schools.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: The transfer of schools between public and separate school boards as a result of Bill 30 is a sensitive and serious matter. When this Legislature passed this bill extending full funding to Roman Catholic separate schools, we established two specific ground rules for school transfers: first, the public had to be involved in the decision to transfer a school; and, second, any transfer decisions had to be made by elected trustees who are directly accountable to parents and ratepayers.

The Ministry of Education, in its dealings with the Lakehead boards of education, has broken both of these ground rules. The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) sent a government official to Thunder Bay to call together the two directors of education. These three men met secretly in a hotel and agreed that Lakeview High School should be given to the separate school board. The trustees of that board were not consulted until after the decision had been made. This was a clear violation of one of those ground rules.

Parents suspected that something was up and applied under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to the memorandum of agreement. A ministry official, Patricia Llewellen, said no such document existed. Then the ministry said that a document did exist but that no specific school was mentioned. Only on November 4 did parents obtain access to the memorandum, signed by three people, which gives Lakeview High School away to the separate board.

The Conservative Party believes that schools should be transferred only by elected trustees and after full public consultation.

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

Mr. Jackson: In Thunder Bay, this government did neither.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

POLISH INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. Ruprecht: Today we will pay tribute to those brave men and women who gave their lives in the defence of our country. But for Canadians of Polish heritage, that day has added significance, since November 11 is Polish Independence Day. After the occupation forces were expelled from Poland in 1918, a free, reunited and independent Poland was established on November 11. For Polish Canadians, November 11 means freedom, the freedom they continue to hope for in their native country.

We are reminded by the anniversary of Polish Independence Day that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and that true peace must be built on the principles of freedom, liberty and democracy for all people and all nations.

By their observance of that day, Polish Canadians keep alive the hope and the struggle for a free and independent Poland and ensure that Canadians continue to appreciate how fortunate they are to live in a society that is blessed and based on the principles of liberty, justice and tolerance.

Today we take great pride in the accomplishments of Polish Canadians here in Canada and we wish them well as they celebrate Polish Independence Day.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: Recently, members of the Legislature had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Ontario forest products industries and they made a very effective presentation on behalf of their industry regarding various concerns they have, particularly with the Ministry of Natural Resources in its programs to regenerate our forests. We heard quite clearly that forest renewal in northern Ontario is not going on to the extent that the forests are being depleted, particularly on the crown lands that are the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

1340

We have an obligation as a province to ensure that we provide for the future wellbeing of the residents of northern Ontario and the critical jobs that are associated with that most important industry. I would call on the minister to take the concerns of the forest industry seriously and address the problems that are being faced by that industry, and in particular ensure that he puts the money back into his budget so that we can maintain and improve the level of regeneration going on in the north, rather than cutting the programs, as he has done most recently.

NATASHA KHASSIN

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next order of business, I would like to ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery Natasha Khassin. Mrs. Khassin is one of the heroes of Soviet Jewry and is visiting the United States and Canada. Please join me in welcoming Mrs. Khassin.

I have also arranged that a representative of each party would have a few moments to offer words of welcome.

Mr. Allen: It is truly an honour for us to have Natasha Khassin with us this afternoon. She is currently completing a tour of North America to call attention to the problems that continue in the Soviet Union for Soviet Jewry and in particular for the refuseniks.

Natasha Khassin is one of the truly heroic voices of religious freedom of our time. She has put her life on the line time and again in the Soviet Union so that her fellow Soviet Jews and the refuseniks in particular might have the kind of support and sustenance that they need to continue their struggle.

When in 1976 the Soviet leadership of the refusenik movement began to disappear, either into prisons or to Israel, and that leadership waned, it was Natasha Khassin who stepped into the breach and took on their functions, the many, many functions they have performed as a collective group, and carried forward with the leadership that they had provided, doing it almost singlehandedly.

She took on many dangerous roles, trying to provide defence for prisoners, trying to research cases and get information that would publicize cases. She also provided a home for those who left prison, who came and stayed with her while they found their feet again. It was at her place that the Alberts conducted their very famous 45-day fast, which eventually led to their leaving the Soviet Union. She herself, in fact, put her life in danger and was constantly harassed and threatened by the KGB and by authorities in the Soviet Union.

She was more than a present help in a time of trouble, she was a tower of strength and a beacon of religious liberty for all those who love the freedom of the human spirit. We are deeply honoured that she is here. We would call attention to the fact that she is not at the moment simply speaking of people in the abstract. She is here also to speak specifically for Boris Chernobilski, who at the moment is seeking an exit from the Soviet Union. She wants in particular for us to remember Boris Chernobilski and people like him who have their lives severely curtailed in the most fundamental ways and in ways that most of us are able to live out and express in our lives here in Canada.

It is a great honour for me to rise and to pay this tribute to Natasha Khassin and to welcome her to our midst this afternoon.

Mr. Cousens: It is with great pleasure that I rise to welcome Natasha Khassin, a most distinguished visitor to our Legislature today. Mrs. Khassin has been referred to as one of the great heroes of Soviet Jewry. I say to all members today that Mrs. Khassin’s accomplishments make her a hero to all people around the world who strive for freedom from persecution, freedom from repression and freedom to live their lives in peace.

In April 1987, Natasha Khassin, along with her husband, Dr. Gennady Khassin, and daughter Yehudit, were finally allowed to leave the Soviet Union, after a 12-year fight. They are now reunited in Israel with daughter Ilona and their two young grandsons.

During those years of waiting, Mrs. Khassin’s valiant ways to campaign against the KGB often found her victim to constant surveillance, attacks in the press, threats of arrest and even threats on her own life; all of this to deter one brilliant and courageous woman from fighting for free emigration for all Jewish people in the Soviet Union.

Mrs. Khassin’s tireless campaign has been wide-ranging, from providing material assistance to prisoners, to travelling across the countryside gathering evidence in their defence, to sheltering as many refuseniks as her small apartment would allow. Many of us will remember the emotional day in February 1986 when TV viewers from around the world shared Nathan Shcharansky’s mother’s joy at the news of his release. This unforgettable event was witnessed from Mrs. Khassin’s apartment.

She graces this House today as part of a 10-city tour across North America in her continuing fight for Soviet refuseniks, notably Boris Chernobilski, refused permission for 12 years and the only refusenik who has been in prison twice as a prisoner of conscience, and also working for Yuli Kosharovski, refused permission to emigrate for 17 years.

On behalf of our party, I join with my colleagues of the Ontario Legislature Committee for Soviet Jewry and the Beth Tikvah congregation in welcoming Mrs. Khassin to our county and to extend to her our deepest thanks for her contribution to humanity. Today is truly a celebration.

Mr. Offer: As one of the co-chairmen of this Legislature’s committee for Soviet Jewry, it is a great honour for me and our party to rise in order to recognize the distinguished visitor, Natasha Khassin, who is with us today.

As has been indicated, Natasha Khassin is a former Soviet refusenik who had been denied permission to emigrate from the Soviet Union for many years. However, her work on behalf of others during her years of denial amply exemplifies a courage and indeed a heroism, because while inside the Iron Curtain she demonstrated a leadership for all Soviet Jews, whether it was a matter of providing aid to prisoners, travelling to remote locations to gather evidence for use in their legal defence and campaigns for western public support or openly defying the KGB, Natasha Khassin was there for anyone who needed her.

Natasha Khassin did this and much more. She cared for prisoners, working with them for their release, and she did this over and over for many, many years. It is a tribute to many concerned individuals, organizations and legislatures like ours which assisted and remained committed to helping our friends like Natasha Khassin emigrate from the Soviet Union. Co-operation from all levels of government combined with the efforts from our communities will ensure that more Soviet Jews will be given the same opportunity as Natasha Khassin.

How appropriate it is for us to use this Legislature, a place which symbolizes a freedom of thought and speech, to bring to life not only her accomplishments but to once more remind all that it is a freedom which we have that others in other lands and other people do not.

On behalf of my party, I would personally like to wish Mrs. Khassin and her family the very best as they rebuild a new life in Israel.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is unanimous consent to make some remarks with regard to Remembrance Day.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed?

Agreed to.

1350

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Tomorrow, November 11, Canadians of all generations across Canada will pause to honour and to pay tribute to all the brave individuals who served and gave their all that we might live in freedom today. On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I would like to express the respect and gratitude of the government of Ontario.

Canadian men and women have always responded quickly and with determination to defend the freedom and way of life that we enjoy today. This way of life is their memorial. Our freedom is their legacy, and the realization of world peace is the best monument we can erect in their honour.

For many people in this province and in this country, war is something remote, other than the occasional viewing of special programs of remembrance of Vimy, Dieppe, D-Day, etc. We have throughout our province and, yes, within the Ontario public service, those men and women who served with distinction and were decorated.

There are also those who know only too well the horrors of it all through confinement in prisoner-of-war or concentration camps. At the close of the Second World War, a well-known army general, in urging the twinning of sister communities throughout the world, said, “We have learned to win the war, but we have never learned to win the peace.”

Our obligation is both to keep alive the memory of those who served and to do everything within our power to be windows to the world in international friendship and understanding. Tomorrow, Remembrance Day, we have that opportunity, and with appreciation through the leadership of our comrades of the Royal Canadian Legion, to express our gratitude to those to whom we owe a tremendous debt.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.

Mr. B. Rae: This is always a day that members commemorate with, I know, a great sense of our history together as a country and our sense of what we owe to those young men and women who gave their lives in the First World War, in the Second World War and in Korea, as well as those, I might add, who have been very active in the United Nations peacekeeping forces for which we, along with a number of other countries, won a Nobel Peace Prize for 1988.

I am named for a great-uncle who died in the First World War. My grandmother lost two brothers in the space of two weeks, and when she gave me a medal commemorating my Uncle Bobby’s life and his work in the armed forces of the United Kingdom, she told me this story. I found it hard to believe that someone would face that kind of tragedy. She said that is the way it was. As I talked with my father about his stories with his father in the First World War, I realized what an extraordinary slaughter, what an extraordinary loss of life it was.

It is said that Canada came of age in the First World War. If we did come of age in the First World War, it was a very difficult and painful birth indeed. It has been much commemorated in song and in poetry. There is always what I call the false poetry of a kind of phoney jingoism.

You will recall no doubt, Mr. Speaker, because of your being the representative from Stratford, that Canadians and Americans have had the opportunity over the last two years to see a remarkable play in Stratford called Not for Heroes. It is the story of the meeting between two great poets, Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, who met in basically a mental hospital in Scotland, because they were both unable to carry on fighting.

It was listening to that play and watching it that I think I wanted to simply pass on to members, rather than listening to words from me as I reflect on those great Canadians who sacrificed so much, as we all participate in the various Remembrance Day ceremonies, and we will all be doing it tomorrow, as we have all week, and look at the many faces with so many memories.

Perhaps I might just close by reciting some lines from a remarkable poem by Wilfred Owen. In it, he describes a meeting -- he calls it “Strange Meeting” -- between two soldiers who meet in hell. I will not read the whole poem, but I will read a part of it.

‘Strange friend,’ I said, ‘here is no cause to mourn.’

‘None,’ said the other, ‘save the undone years,

The hopelessness. Whatever hope is yours,

Was my life also; I went hunting wild

After the wildest beauty in the world,

Which lies not calm in eyes, or braided hair,

But mocks the steady running of the hour,

And if it grieves, grieves richlier than here.

For by my glee might many men have laughed,

And of my weeping something had been left,

Which must die now. I mean the truth untold,

The pity of war, the pity war distilled....

Courage was mine, and I had mystery,

Wisdom was mine, and I had mastery;...

I am the enemy you killed, my friend.

I knew you in this dark; for so you frowned

Yesterday through me as you jabbed and killed.

I parried; but my hands were loath and cold.

Let us sleep now...’

As we reflect on this day, we must make a commitment, all of us, to remember. Yes, to remember with as much distinction as we can, the extraordinary contribution in the lives, the memories, the dreams, the hopes of those whose hopes were dashed in sacrificing their all for our freedom and for our liberty, but let us remember as well these words: Never again.

Mr. Cousens: I am honoured, on behalf of our party, to be able to speak on this most important subject, because, indeed, all of us have special memories that go back to the great wars. The father of one of our members, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), was killed during the Second World War.

I know many others were anxious to say something today, especially because of the young people in the gallery. I just hope that young people across our province will take a moment. Fortunately, schools are still in session on Remembrance Day now. May our schools and all the people of this province reflect with us on the meaning of the day that ended the Great War.

It all came to an end at 11 a.m., November 11, 1918, 70 years ago. It was supposed to be the war to end all wars. November 11 has since become an international day of remembrance in all the countries involved in that terrible war, to commemorate those who made the supreme sacrifice.

Here in Canada, we pay tribute to the more than 100,000 individuals who lost their lives in the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean conflict. We also honour those who have served in our armed forces. Fortunately, our younger generation has not had to experience the horrors and the tragedies of war, but we all realize that, with our modern weapons of total destruction, it is impossible for any country to win a war.

On November 11, let us honour the courageous Canadians who gave their lives so that we might enjoy freedom and peace and renew our efforts to promote those principles throughout the world.

I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a very special Canadian war hero who died in May of this year at age 83. Lieutenant-Colonel the Reverend John W. Foote, a Presbyterian minister, was the only Canadian chaplain to receive the Victoria Cross. He was awarded the British Empire’s highest military honour for helping wounded Canadian soldiers from the beaches of Dieppe during that disastrous raid in August 1942. He was interned as a prisoner of war for the remainder of the war.

After the Second World War, John Foote was a senior chaplain at Camp Borden and then was elected as a member of this Legislature in 1948. He served in the cabinet of Premier Leslie Frost and was Minister of Correctional Services until he was forced by ill health to resign in 1957.

In 1982, Branch 580 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Grafton was named in his honour. He is one of the many veterans who is not around this year to share with us in the memory of November 11.

Each year there are fewer and fewer veterans to march to the cenotaph and deposit their poppies on the wreaths. Each year the memories of those wars become more distant and remote to many who were not there or who were not born at that time. Each year we must continue to remember and to make sure that our young people and those who come after us will never forget.

1400

Mr. Speaker: I believe, and I hope all members would agree, that it would be fitting to have a minute’s silence. I would ask all members to rise and observe a minute’s silence in remembrance of all those who gave their lives for us and for our country.

The House observed one minute’s silence.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Just before I call the next order of business, I have just been informed that we have a visitor in the lower west gallery, Gerry Gibeault, MLA for Edmonton-Mill Woods constituency in Alberta. Please join me in welcoming him.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON WOMEN’S ISSUES / RAPPORT ANNUEL, CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE L’ONTARIO SUR LA CONDITION FÉMININE

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Later today I will be tabling the 1987-88 annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on Women’s Issues.

The council’s mandate is to advise the government of Ontario, through myself as minister responsible for women’s issues, on matters relating to the status of women in Ontario.

During 1987-88, members of the council travelled to many parts of Ontario to hold public forums on a wide variety of issues and topics of particular concern to women.

Au cours de l’exercice 1987-1988, les membres du Conseil se sont rendus des diverses régions de l’Ontario, afin de mener des débats publics sur diverses questions présentant un intérêt particulier pour les femmes.

Early in 1987 the council began a series of public consultations to learn about regional concerns facing sole-support mothers in Ontario. These consultations allowed members of the council to hear directly from the women affected by these issues.

The council made recommendations on these issues which have been given very careful study by the responsible ministries and the Ontario women s directorate. A written response to the recommendations by the council will be made soon.

Ideas from the public were also shared with council on such diverse topics as child care, the Constitution, francophone services, health, access to language programs for immigrant and visible minority women, pensions and on the role of women in the economy.

I would like to mention the government’s recent appointments of seven new members to the Ontario Advisory Council on Women’s Issues. These new members are: Milagros Eustaquio of Mississauga, Kathleen Lahey of Kingston, Catherine McPherson of Toronto, Lana Mitchel of North Bay, Sherry Moreau of Kenora, Lucya Spencer of Ottawa and Lynn Zimmer of Peterborough.

The appointment of these very distinguished individuals strengthens the council’s vital capacity to understand and communicate to government the concerns of all the women in Ontario, including women of visible and ethnic minorities, women with disabilities and women from the north and from rural areas.

My thanks go to council president Sandra Kerr, who succeeds outgoing president Sam Ion, and, indeed, to all the members of council, who have met with so many individuals and groups during the past year. Their suggestions for action will be studied carefully, and I look forward to continuing to receive the advice of council on the critical issues facing the women of this province.

Before I conclude, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the president of the council, Sandra Kerr, along with the executive officer of the council, Bridget Vianna, in the members’ gallery.

DISASTER RELIEF

Hon. Mr. Phillips: As members are aware, Hurricane Joan struck Central America during the weekend of October 22, hitting Nicaragua with particular severity. More than 100 people were killed and over 300,000 were left homeless. Also, as members of all three parties recently told the House, the situation there is particularly critical.

At the same time as Hurricane Joan was going across Central America, Typhoon Ruby hit the Philippines, triggering torrential rains and causing flash floods. Before the cleanup was completed, a second typhoon hit. Together, both these disasters left hundreds of people reported dead or missing and at least 50,000 people homeless. International appeals for assistance were launched in both cases.

Today, in response to these requests, the government of Ontario will be giving two grants of $100,000 each to the Ontario division of the Canadian Red Cross. This will assist the victims of the hurricane in Nicaragua and elsewhere in Central America and the victims of the typhoons in the Philippines and other areas of the Pacific.

These two grants are consistent with Ontario’s practice of making grants for emergency relief assistance on humanitarian grounds and thus contributing to the efforts of Canada and the international community in alleviating the suffering of victims of particularly serious natural disasters.

IDEA CORP.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have received the Provincial Auditor’s report on the review of the IDEA Corp. that I requested on January 12, 1988, and I am tabling this report today. Honourable members will recall that I asked the Provincial Auditor to conduct a full inquiry into the operations of the IDEA Corp. and to report back to me.

The Provincial Auditor has prepared his independent and comprehensive report, for which I am sure all members of the House will thank him. The Provincial Auditor found no evidence that the IDEA investments were made for reasons other than commercial merit or the economic development interests of Ontario. Notwithstanding these findings, the auditor confirmed the general perception of IDEA as an organization plagued by problems from its inception in 1981. The report’s findings support the government’s decision to wind down the IDEA Corp.

The auditor was also specifically requested by me to report on concerns about political interference or conflicts of interest. Members will recall that it was questions of this type about PRA International which triggered our inquiry. The Provincial Auditor concludes that IDEA’s decisions concerning PRA International were not affected by any political interference.

Members are familiar with the Graham Software and Wyda Systems matters. The standing committee on public accounts has had extensive dealings with these cases. The findings and impressions of the public accounts committee are generally confirmed by the auditor. I am sure the auditor would be receptive to discussing his conclusions in greater detail with members of the public accounts committee.

I also remind members that criminal charges have been laid against the principal of Wyda. In addition, a judgement in the amount of $3.6 million has been obtained against this person and is currently being enforced. The government has also initiated a lawsuit against Graham Software Corp. I am confident this proceeding will ensure a final resolution of all outstanding issues.

The auditor was asked if there was any evidence that IDEA decisions involved any conflict of interest by IDEA officials or other irregularities of that nature. He has indicated that he found no evidence of political interference in this regard. The one possible case of conflict of interest is currently before the courts.

It was for these reasons that the government instituted numerous improvements in government lending and investment of funds and has ensured that a more stringent level of analysis is applied to all decisions of this nature. The principal agencies that disburse funds are now either part of the development corporations or are linked to them in the analysis of proposals.

Cabinet has also approved a complete renewal of the development corporations. This initiative provides for tighter controls and increased supervision by the boards of directors of the development corporations. The Provincial Auditor is familiar with this renewal program and has indicated his support.

I will also be tabling the final report of Jack Biddell, whose findings were incorporated into the Provincial Auditor’s report.

1410

RESPONSES

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to respond to two of the statements, if I might, the first by the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips).

On behalf of the members of my party, as well as those of us in the House who travelled to Nicaragua and have a special affinity with that struggling nation, I would like to thank the government for finding $100,000 to put towards the disaster relief efforts which are so necessary in that country. This is the first time this government has seen fit to extend aid to that particular country, and I welcome it, even if it is only on the basis of relief for the disaster at this particular point. It will open the door, perhaps, to a further interest in assisting that country, especially now that there is a Bush regime in the United States.

My fear for the continued harassment of that nation will be continuing. It is about time our country showed some international guts and got on the side of helping that burgeoning democracy to continue.

For the people in the Philippines, this is also going to be a welcome announcement, because it has now suffered a second typhoon attack, as the minister and the House will know, and has had a very difficult time of it in recent weeks.

I hope that we might think about these amounts of money, though, the money we have given to Jamaica, around $200,000, and now $100,000 to each of the other two countries, in terms of what Lottario makes in a week and to think perhaps that we should be establishing a more consistent funding apparatus to make sure there is money available, not two weeks or two and a half weeks after a disaster, but as soon as possible, so that we can provide assistance. We might also think of providing development aid from this Legislature that might allow countries to be able to handle their own disasters better when they occur.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON WOMEN’S ISSUES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Speaking briefly to the minister responsible for women’s issues (Mr. Sorbara), I would just say that I have not been women’s issues critic for long, but I am used to annual reports. I am frankly stunned by the lack of information that is available in the council’s report, the lack of recommendations, the lack of any kind of focus. When I dealt with the disabled, there was always a list of recommendations. When I dealt with the elderly, there was always a list of recommendations.

I am very surprised that here, today, there is nothing about employment equity and what this government has not done on that, there is nothing about our abysmal record on parental leave and there is nothing about many of the other concerns facing the women in the province. I hope this format may be changed in the future.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. B. Rae: Members should listen to the words of the report itself on the IDEA Corp. “We concluded that effective business planning did not exist throughout the life of the corporation.... We concluded that IDEA’s investment decisions were generally not undertaken with sufficient attention and due diligence.... We found evidence of conflict of interest or similar irregularities in only one instance, Graham Software.”

They also found there was evidence of outside influence, and in particular referred to the influence of Ivan Fleischmann, who, I understand, is still a member of the Liberal Party.

“By way of summary,” they also said, “our review confirmed the general perception of IDEA as an organization plagued by problems from beginning to end -- ponderous start, uncertain direction, unsettled management, internal discord and adversarial relationships with other government bodies. Certainly not the type of environment that breeds success.”

In particular, in dealing with the Wyda question, I think it is not only interesting, it is important to note that with respect to both Graham Software, where the Provincial Auditor found that there was a situation involving a potential conflict, and with respect to Wyda, where the Provincial Auditor found very directly that there was external influence on the decision with respect to Wyda -- and in fact, as a result, an improper decision was made -- the auditor has substantiated the very requirements that led to the establishment of his review.

I might also say that in addition to showing real problems with respect to these two particular investments, which were made after 1985 when the government took power, the report also has a great deal to say about the structural and management problems which were endemic to the very foundation of the IDEA Corp. from the very beginning.

I only regret that -- the minister has had this report for 24 hours and has had an opportunity to respond to it -- as members of the House might know, I have had this report for about seven minutes and this is the basis of my response. But it gives us enough to go on. I think we have enough to go on to show that not only was the Wyda decision wrong --

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

Mr. B. Rae: -- and the Graham Software decision a problem, but also very real problems right back to the very beginning of these --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you.

Mr. Brandt: I have to say, with all respect to the minister, that I am deeply disturbed. The fact is a specific request was made of him yesterday to release the report at the earliest possible opportunity. I stood up on a point of privilege to make that request. If I was a doubting man, it would almost appear as if the minister held the report and his statement until literally seconds before he got on his feet today, to make it virtually impossible to respond to the content of the report. However, I am going to, because there are areas of the report that are deeply disturbing.

It is deeply disturbing to me that more attention was not paid by the auditor to the question of why a series of events came about as follows. A letter from the president to the minister in September 1985 indicated that IDEA was going to be conducted on a business-as-usual basis. In the fall of 1985, in that same time frame, we have the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) of this province talking about a wind-down of IDEA Corp. Then in December 1985, in that three-month period, we have the chairman again being of the opinion that there was going to be a resurrection of IDEA in some new form.

The kind of confusion, the kind of misunderstanding that was going on between the minister’s office, the Treasurer’s office and certainly the president of IDEA Corp. with respect to IDEA Corp. is almost unheard of. It resulted in 90 per cent of all of the investment portfolio of IDEA that was lost coming during his term and only 10 per cent of it during the term of the previous government. I think that is something he should be totally and completely ashamed of.

We will take the opportunity, over the course of the next short while, to review this report in detail. I can assure the minister we will have questions on it today and for a few days into the future as well.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Cousens: Our party is pleased to see that the government has responded to the need for disaster relief for Nicaragua and the Philippines. Our own member, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), asked for this on October 24. We are pleased that this time the minister has responded and pleased as well that the money is being funded through the Red Cross. I think this is the way in which we should administer support. We know the funds will get there.

One thing our government could be doing, and we could all be doing, is encouraging people from Ontario to start giving more of themselves. I know it is a responsible thing for the government to participate and to give, but we also must encourage the public at large to participate in helping with world relief, famine relief and the needs of those people in different parts of the world.

Anything the minister can do through his ministry to support and maintain and undergird those organizations that are volunteering their services to find that help, that too will help supplement the kind of funding he is announcing today.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON WOMEN’S ISSUES

Mrs. Marland: In responding to the statement from the minister responsible for women’s issues, I think it is very important that his ministry does more than just consider reports and recommendations from organizations like the Ontario Advisory Council on Women’s Issues. I think that now we are in the 20th century, when we realize that women’s issues are not just women’s issues, and here I am as a woman in the House today responding to this statement, mainly because the member, the critic who is responsible for women’s issues for our party is not here today. The fact is that while we are in 1988 and we have an organization that has done the kind of work which this organization has done, this Ontario advisory council on women’s issues was established, obviously, by the Progressive Conservative government, which saw the need and had the foresight to appoint that council.

The only regret I have in the minister’s statement is that he does not make anything but a passing reference to the outgoing president, Sam Ion, who committed three years of her life to the cause of women’s issues in this province. He does not even thank her for the work she has done. I realize he did not write the statement, but I think it would be rather interesting if he could direct his staff to thank someone like Sam Ion, who made a tremendous contribution to this province.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: We are joined today in the gallery by Mary Dyson, whose daughter Bronwyn is the subject of a letter which she has written to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan).

Bronwyn Dyson Downey was home in 1983 with a heart problem, which was monitored constantly by the doctors, who had to choose an ideal time to operate. In February, the cardiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children said the operation should be done as soon as possible. In June, the operation was scheduled for October 20, and Ms. Dyson goes on to tell the minister: “We were relieved, although anxious, that our daughter would finally be treated. In the months following, we have planned and prepared ourselves and our family for this event. Arrangements were made for leave from work for parents and grandparents. One grandparent was to have come in from out of town. Everyone was prepared for what we knew would be a stressful, but, in the long run, positive experience for our daughter.”

That operation was cancelled on October 13, for the simple reason that there were not enough nurses in the intensive care unit at Sick Children’s Hospital to schedule the surgery.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: Can the minister tell us whether she thinks this is a satisfactory level of care for Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am aware of this particular case. In fact, the hospital has informed the ministry that it as well is aware of the seriousness of postponing surgery and the severe emotional effect it can have on the family. As I understand, postponing the surgery is only considered in cases where the patient’s condition is not considered life-threatening, and the physicians are the ones who determine when scheduling will take place.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is responsible for a health care system in which there is now such a shortage of critical care nurses at Sick Children’s Hospital that in September and October of this year, some 30 cases of surgery were delayed. The turnover rate in critical care nursing at the hospital is some 25 or 30 per cent. They have 18 ICU beds now and they want to open up four more but they cannot open up those ICU beds for one simple reason. The minister knows what the reason is. She has known about it ever since she became Minister of Health. It is for one simple reason, a drastic shortage, again documented today in another government report, the report of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, saying quite specifically the problem is a shortage of nurses in critical cue. It has consequences for families.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. B. Rae: It has consequences for five-year-old kids who have been waiting all their lives for an operation. It is scheduled for a certain time, and a week before --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: -- the whole thing is delayed with incredible trauma for the whole family and all the people surrounding Bronwyn.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. B. Rae: Does the minister recognize that it is her responsibility to do something about the shortage of critical care nurses in the province?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to share with the Leader of the Opposition his obvious concern and mine, about the fact that in the province today we know there is a vacancy rate in nursing of between two and three per cent around the whole province. What is most disturbing is that that vacancy rate is much higher in downtown Toronto in the tertiary care centres and particularly in critical care nursing.

I have said before that I think this is an issue which involves the profession, the nurses themselves; the government; the hospital association, and the individual hospitals. Over the past year, I have been bringing people together to discuss this very issue. There is one report from the reactivated nursing manpower committee, and today, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario presented its report.

I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that there are no simple or easy answers to this systemic problem, which relates directly to the changing role of women. I wish, as I am sure he wishes, that the answers were easy, but I can tell him that we are bringing people together to resolve these as best we can in this difficult situation.

Mr. B. Rae: No one is suggesting on this side that there are simple answers. What we have been saying for a year and a half is that there are some answers. What the government has been doing is absolutely nothing to address any of the suggestions that have been made by the RNAO, by the Ontario Nurses’ Association, by any of the hospitals involved in terms of extra money for staff training. There are lots of things that can be done, and the suggestions are there, very specifically, for the minister to move on. She is the one who has been sitting on those decisions and has not been making them.

By way of final supplementary, the minister will know I mentioned the figure of 18 beds now, which cannot be fully operational because we do not have enough critical care nurses. The minister should know that in three years’ time, Sick Kids Hospital is building a new wing, which is going to have a new ICU unit, which is going to have 44 beds.

I would like to ask the minister, what assurance can she give not only Bronwyn and the hundreds of other Bronwyns who are out there now waiting for operations that simply are not happening because of the critical care shortage but also future generations who are going to be looking at a brand-spanking-new hospital with 44 beds and not enough nurses to keep even half of them open at current levels. That is what she has.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, I believe we are doing much. We know that this issue is directly related to job satisfaction. We hear from the nurses that one of the most important issues for them is amendment of the Public Hospitals Act. I said that rather than waiting for that which I hope will be done within the next yew, we are moving now to change regulations under that act to make sure nurses will have a stronger voice in resource allocation and management in hospitals.

As well, and I think it is important for the Leader of the Opposition to note, these very issues respond best to what I have been talking about for many, many months; that is, the need to do appropriate human resource planning for the future; manpower planning, if you will. As we plan for expansion of programs, regardless of where they are, we should consider what those human resource needs are going to be and make sure that we can respond to them in the future.

We are working with all of the nursing associations; we are working with the Ontario Hospital Association; we are working with the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto, which will also have a report -- I believe it should be out in a day or two -- to address this very important issue, which does not relate simply to vacancy rates, professional issues or government issues but really does relate to the changing role of women within our society.

CASE OF ANTONIO PRETE AND GINO TURCHIARO

Mr. B. Rae: We are also joined in the gallery today by Antonio Prete, who, along with his friend, Mr. Turchiaro, bears the extraordinary burden of having spent over two years in jail and who was essentially acquitted twice, once at a preliminary inquiry and then again at trial, for the first-degree murder of Aldo Citton.

I have had correspondence and conversations with the Attorney General about this issue for well over a year now. I visited Mr. Prete in prison when he was there, after the Attorney General launched a preferred indictment against him. I wonder if the Attorney General does not feel that because he personally is responsible for the fact that a preferred indictment was brought against Mr. Prete after he was released on the preliminary inquiry, after the preliminary inquiry found that there was not sufficient evidence to convict, he and his government have some responsibility to compensate Mr. Prete for the fact that he spent over two years in prison, that his family and personal life have been very badly damaged by this experience, as I am sure the Attorney General would appreciate, and that something should be done for someone who was acquitted not simply at trial but twice, at trial and at the preliminary inquiry.

1430

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not feel that way. As the honourable member knows, when a preliminary hearing judge decides not to commit for trial, there is no appeal from that determination regardless of how erroneous it may be. It is for that reason, because of the absence of the appeal, that the Criminal Code provides the right to prefer an indictment directly in front of a judge and jury, which is what we did in this case.

The accused, as was their perfect right to do, complained about that process, and my friend will know, because I have given it to him, that Mr. Justice O’Driscoll, who was the judge of the Supreme Court before whom that issue came, totally vindicated the decision --

Mr. B. Rae: No, he didn’t. The question of bail was before O’Driscoll.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Yes. Here is what he said about preferring the indictment and the decision of the preliminary inquiry judge: “In my view, it suffices to say that the discharge of the two accused at the end of the preliminary hearing was a total aberration.” There was a whole lot more than the bare bones of a prima facie case laid before the provincial court judge. In that case it is clear that it would be the duty of any Attorney General of any party to prefer an indictment, and that I did.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Justice O’Driscoll was dealing with the question of bail. He was not dealing at all with the question of the legitimacy or otherwise of the preferred indictment, and the Attorney General knows that perfectly well. He knows perfectly well --

Mr. Fleet: Listen to the quote.

Mr. B. Rae: Well, the Attorney General says it is a total aberration. A jury took precisely three hours --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: A jury took precisely three hours to acquit both Mr. Prete and Mr. Turchiaro, and after a three-month preliminary inquiry, Judge Clendenning said there was not evidence on which a conviction could possibly proceed and he said specifically to the two accused: “You have been badly treated by the system. You can go now.”

They then were out for a few months and they were arrested at home on a preferred indictment by the Attorney General of this province, spent well over a year and a half again in jail without bail and then were acquitted, the jury having taken three hours to find an acquittal of both gentlemen.

We spent some time debating the Nelles case in this House. It was a case that aroused tremendous sympathy, and I simply want to ask the Attorney General --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: It was again found in a preliminary inquiry that there was not sufficient evidence to convict, and the charges were dismissed. She was then compensated. Mr. Prete and Mr. Turchiaro have not received similar treatment.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the Attorney General, does he think he can do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think it is worth pointing out, just so the record will be clear, that Mr. Justice O’Driscoll, speaking of the decision of the lower court judge, Judge Clendenning, not to prefer an indictment and not to let the case go ahead, said it was a “total aberration,” that that decision was a total aberration. That makes clear that the decision of any Attorney General to prefer an indictment was entirely appropriate.

The matter came on before trial before a jury, and my friend is entirely correct: These two men were acquitted of the charge. They were held in jail. The reason they were held in jail, as my friend knows well, is that under the code a burden is imposed on them -- whether that be right or wrong is a matter for the federal Parliament -- to establish in certain circumstances why they should be released from jail pending appeal, and many people are. The judges in this case, including the Court of Appeal in the case of one of the accused, refused to release these two accused pending their trial. It was not a decision of the Attorney General; it was a decision of the court.

Mr. B. Rae: I would hope the Attorney General would reflect on this for a moment. He knows full well that preferring an indictment is not a common event. He knows full well that a preliminary inquiry is usually either the beginning or the end of it, and this preliminary inquiry lasted for three months and found that, in fact, there just was not enough there to mount a case. Without hearing from the defence counsel at all, without any appeal process of any kind -- it was a decision taken by him exclusively on the basis of evidence from the crown, which evidence was not persuasive either to the preliminary court or to the jury at the trial that subsequently took place -- the Attorney General decided to launch that preferred indictment at extraordinary personal cost to two citizens who have spent over two years in jail and have, in effect, been acquitted twice and have been found by no court in this country to have ever committed a crime in this regard whatsoever.

Does the minister not think those gentleman deserve some kind of compensation from him and from his government for having spent that long in incarceration, having had their lives damaged in this way?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Let’s just review the matter. The decision to prefer the indictment was found by the Supreme Court of Ontario to be vindicated in that the decision releasing the accused was regarded as a total aberration. The decision to hold the two accused in jail pending their trial was made by the Supreme Court of Ontario and in one case was reviewed and confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Ontario.

I believe, for what it is worth, in cases where the accused are innocent, that the position the attorneys general of Canada have taken -- that compensation should be considered -- is the appropriate principle. It is perhaps useful to point out that in this case, in an article reported in the Toronto Star, Earl Levy, one of the most prominent defence counsels in Canada -- and, by the way the counsel for Mr. Turchimo at this trial -- is not convinced of the need to compensate. He says --

Mr. B. Rae: It is not true. He said exactly the opposite in the Globe yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Don’t you want to hear it?

Mr. B. Rae: No, he said exactly the opposite. It’s totally incorrect. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Don’t you want to hear what he says? You can’t take it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: You don’t know what you’re talking about. You haven’t talked to Earl Levy.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If anybody wants copies of what Mr. Levy said, I’ll show them to you.

Mr. B. Rae: You haven’t talked to Earl Levy.

Hon. Mr. Scott: You don’t read the papers, because it doesn’t suit you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the Leader of the Opposition and the Attorney General. Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I wish members would stop wasting time. Other members have questions.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with respect to the auditor’s report and certain findings. Let me just say by way of preamble, if I might , that I am a little disappointed with the minister, as I indicated a few moments ago, in the way in which this report was released. I have great respect for the minister and, under normal circumstances I would think that he is not only a man of fairness but a man of sensitivity. But in this particular report, the way in which it was released leaves a great deal to be desired.

My question to the minister, however, is that in the fall of 1985 there were a number of peculiar statements that came out of IDEA Corp. that in some way led to some very significant losses in that corporation. The president of IDEA Corp. was carrying on business as usual. The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) of this province was talking about the fact that IDEA Corp. was, in fact, going to be wound down, and one would think that that statement would send a clear signal to IDEA Corp. that further approvals would not be forthcoming. Then we have the president indicating later on in December 1985 that, in fact, there was going to be a new IDEA Corp. We have this whole series of very expensive approvals that occurred in that same time frame.

Can the minister perhaps enlighten us as to what was going on at that time, because certainly that is not clarified in the auditor’s report?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Members will know that at the time the government was looking into the whole IDEA Corp. -- and I have to tell members that the only regret I have is that we did not wind it down sooner -- John Kruger was sent in to look at the IDEA Corp. While he was discussing with them their future, the Treasurer of Ontario brought down his budget, in which he clearly stated that IDEA Corp. would be wound down.

While Mr. Kruger was dealing with the officials at IDEA Corp., he was looking at various options of what they were to do. They may have interpreted them in ways over which I have no control but, notwithstanding that, after Mr. Kruger made his report to cabinet in February 1986, the decision was made to confirm our decision to wind it down.

1440

Mr. Brandt: I would just remind the minister that he had Mr. Kruger; Mr. Carman; the standing committee on public accounts; Jack Biddell; the Ontario Development Corp.; Peat, Marwick; Coopers and Lybrand; the Ontario Provincial Police, and now the auditor look at IDEA, and we still have not got to the bottom of it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: If the hyenas over there in the back row will keep quiet, can the minister explain a memo from the president of IDEA Corp. to the vice-president which states that Ivan Fleischmann submitted a proposal on Wyda Corp. to IDEA? The memo goes on to state, “As Ivan is very influential at Queen’s Park suggest you give Wyda a good look.” Why did the minister give Wyda a good look that cost the taxpayers of this province $3 million?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If the member has had an opportunity to read the recommendations of the Provincial Auditor, he will see that the auditor says that, in his opinion, there were no decisions made of an untoward nature other than Wyda and Graham Software.

Mr. B. Rae: That’s why we’re asking about Wyda.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is talking about Wyda. The public accounts committee has looked at this thing extensively. We had sent the police in to look at it. As a result of their investigations, charges have been laid, a judgement of $3.6 million has been made against the president and we are presently pursuing that particular recovery. What else does the member want out of that? We have done what we determined was the proper thing to do.

As far as Graham Software is concerned, if the member is going to get to that particular issue, we have launched a lawsuit against it. On the two areas in the whole report-other than the criticism of the member’s particular government when it was in power for starting this thing, for the poor direction, for the poor administration, for everything else, which is laid at his governments door -- on the only two issues the auditor has found that the member could possibly say have been laid at our door, we have in one case sent in the police, where charges have been laid, and in the other case we have launched a lawsuit.

Mr. Brandt: Since the inception of IDEA Corp. the Liberals have talked about this being a bad idea. Let the people of this province know that one third of the investment came from the previous government, and while the Liberals were badmouthing IDEA, talking about closing it down, fully two thirds of all the investment out of IDEA Corp. was made through the decisions of this government.

In light of those facts, since the minister gave this House an undertaking that the auditor would in fact have complete access to whatever information he required in order to carry out a thorough audit of IDEA Corp., did he in fact instruct or have any conversations with the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) with respect to information acquired by the Ontario Provincial Police in their investigations; and was anything other than a cursory conversation held between the auditor and the Solicitor General’s staff, through the OPP, or were there exchanges of documents, because it is those documents that we are ultimately going to get at?

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

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party actually had two questions. He wanted to know why these excessive losses in the time we, as a government, had responsibility for the IDEA Corp. I should tell members that in November 1984 the IDEA board decided to make more direct investments and to take higher risks. This philosophy was built into IDEA’s business plan and was approved by its board in May 1985. What has happened is that we have been the beneficiaries of the previous government’s legacy. What members of the third party are trying to do is say to us, “You guys lost all this money when you took over,” but they had been in charge of the store since 1981. We happened to pick up all of the previous government’s bad debts. It is unfortunate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The way the system works, you ask the questions, I provide the answers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Any further response?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party had two parts to his question. I would like to respond to the second part of it.

The question is, has the Solicitor General provided any information to the Ontario Provincial Police, in turn providing it to the auditor? I have to say that I do not know. I do not know because once I directed the auditor to do his study, I gave him virtual carte blanche, and if you take a look at the auditor’s report, you will see my letter of transmittal in which I gave him his instructions. I told him he could have access to anything he wanted. If he found he could not get it, he could come back to this body --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That seems like a fairly full answer.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education regarding the school transfers under Bill 30 in the Lakehead boards of education.

Documents in my possession show that an official from his ministry flew to Thunder Bay earlier this year and brought together the two directors of education for a meeting in a hotel room. When they emerged, they had agreed and signed off a transfer of a specific school, Lakeview High School, to the separate school board. This is a clear violation of the Education Act. Trustees were only recently advised that any such agreement even existed.

A public review of the future of Lakeview High School that is currently under way is being referred to as an expensive public farce, because the decision to transfer it was made by his ministry several months ago.

Would the minister not agree that the public and the trustees should be consulted specifically about the transfer of schools before the fact, instead of after the fact, in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member is correct in pointing out that, indeed, officials from my ministry did fly to Thunder Bay and did meet with directors of the coterminous boards. As a matter of fact, over the course of the past 12 months, officials from my ministry have been visiting boards throughout Ontario in an effort to assist them in dealing with what is clearly a very difficult and sensitive matter for coterminous boards to deal with as we try to resolve the issues relative to accommodation as a result of the implementation of full funding under Bill 30.

I might point out that my friend the member for Burlington South in this Legislature just 12 months ago was consistently up on his feet demanding that my ministry take a role, demanding that it intervene and participate in those discussions and negotiations.

I heard the member’s complaints and, in fact, over the course of the past year, we have assisted boards in coming to settlements. But the suggestion that the ministry by itself can order the transfer of a specific facility is, of course, nonsense. Boards make those determinations. They have in every other jurisdiction and they did in Lakehead.

Mr. Jackson: When I was raising the questions about Metropolitan Toronto and Hamilton-Wentworth, I asked for and received permission that trustees sit at those tables in those negotiations. No trustee, no publicly elected individual was behind those closed doors.

I want to quote the minister from what he told this House in Hansard on Tuesday. “There is a requirement under the Education Act that coterminous boards meet in joint session to come up with arrangements relative to the use of surplus space that may exist in the public school system.” That is what he said in Hansard. That is the law. But that is not what happened in Thunder Bay. Three bureaucrats met in a hotel room; that is what happened in Thunder Bay, and the Lakehead trustees still have not been advised of the details of that agreement.

Is this not a violation of the very legislation that he explained to this House on Tuesday?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am sure the member knows full well that only a board, through its trustees, can make a determination either to close a school or to transfer a facility.

The fact that the member wants to portray discussions that may have been held at the staff level between coterminous boards with or without representatives of my ministry as some sort of surreptitious activity, some sort of cloak-and-dagger operation, is, quite frankly, just plain silly.

1450

Mr. Jackson: There was a signed agreement, signed by the minister’s ministry official -- it has his signature on it -- before the trustees ever even saw it. Parents and taxpayers in Thunder Bay have now uncovered how school transfers are really being conducted in this province and they had to do it by filing under the Freedom of information and Protection of Privacy Act. They have a right to know, and this House has a right to know, if the minister has changed the rules under which we are negotiating and how negotiations are going on.

Can the minister confirm to this House which other boards have conducted negotiations with his ministry similar to the negotiations at the Lakehead boards but which as yet have not been approved or presented to trustees? I ask him specifically about boards such as Halton, Peterborough, Renfrew, Kingston, Sudbury and Lincoln.

Mr. Speaker: It is a good question. It almost sounds like an Orders and Notices question.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am indeed tempted to give an order paper answer. However, I think there is a relatively short answer for the benefit of the member, and that is that there have been no facilities that have either been closed or transferred without the approval of boards and the approval of trustees.

Frankly, watching this member’s position on this matter, given his statements in May and July of last year, is a little bit like watching a ball at a tennis match.

MAINTENANCE OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning a building at 2179 Queen Street East in the city of Toronto, owned by 598944 Ontario Ltd. This building has applied now for a 25 per cent increase in rent but is still subject to outstanding work orders by the city of Toronto.

Does the minister think it is appropriate that a building where there are outstanding work orders would make such an application and does she think it reasonable that the following notice should have been sent to the tenants: “It is expected that the hallway ceiling will be down for several months. There will be no partial or whole rebates in rent during this period. If you find this inconvenience too discomforting, you should speak to the superintendent and he will attempt to sublet your apartment for you”? Is that appropriate?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In the case of any building in which there are outstanding work orders, the tenants have recourse to the Residential Rental Standards Board, which is part of the system we have as part of rent review. It is as a result of the work of the maintenance standards board that we have been able to push along many landlords to fixing their buildings, those buildings that do have outstanding municipal work orders. In fact, more than 500 landlords have responded in fixing buildings that did need fixing.

Clearly, anyone living in a building where major repairs are going on wants those repairs done as expeditiously as possible, and the maintenance standards board deals with that issue.

Mr. Breaugh: The maintenance standards board is aware of the problem but has been unable to get the Residential Tenancy Commission to do anything. I wonder if the minister could. Would she take it upon herself to inform this landlord that he cannot ignore the city of Toronto bylaws and be in violation of them, that he cannot make a fool of the government’s residential standards requirements and still make application to the rent review board for a 25 per cent increase? In case she would like to find him, he is the Liberal candidate in the riding of Beaches-Woodbine. His name is Terry Kelly. She should give him a call.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is up to the city of Toronto to make sure its bylaws are enforced. I am very glad to hear the member say anything about any problem that any tenants in this city face. I am very glad to say we have various ways of making sure repairs are done in buildings.

Mr. Breaugh: Why don’t you pick up your phone and do something about it? You are allowed to talk to your candidates.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I think it is very important for the tenants in this building to get the kind of support they need. The maintenance standards board is there for them, the municipal bylaws and enforcement are there for them, and I think they will be able to take advantage of them.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. As I am sure she is aware the nursing shortage in this province is indeed a very serious problem. It is one of the main reasons we are facing waiting lists, patients in hallways and emergency waiting times of over 24 hours. Yet it would appear to the objective observer as if her ministry has been operating in a vacuum on this issue.

The minister now has four reports dealing with the nursing shortage in the province of Ontario: the Ontario Nurses’ Association’s Goldfarb report; the nursing manpower report of the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto; today, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario’s appropriately named “Sorry, no care available due to nursing shortage” report, and her ministry’s very own report on nursing manpower.

Putting nurses on advisory committees in hospitals is indeed necessary, but this alone will not solve the nursing crisis. We need some concrete action by the minister and something has to be done now. How many more reports does she need before she is going to take action?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: This is an issue we have discussed a number of times in this House and one about which I know the member opposite shares my concern.

All the advice I have received on this very important issue is that it is extremely complex and that there are no simple or easy answers. The number of reports which have come forward have identified the fact that there are issues for the profession, many of which are being hotly debated and discussed by the profession; there are issues for the hospitals, which are the employers, and I believe it is very appropriate for the hospitals themselves to be discussing and addressing those with their association, the Ontario Hospital Association, as well as a role for government.

I have undertaken that we will move forward and open the Ontario Public Hospitals Act to address this issue from a legislative framework. As well, we will move with regulations on which we are now consulting so that we can ensure that nurses have a say, that they are considered a valuable member of the hospital and the health care team, and that they have an important role to play in decision-making in that environment.

Mr. Eves: Does the minister realize that each time a nurse leaves the profession it costs our health care system money? It costs us money in terms of education costs, it costs us money in terms of overtime costs and the extra cost of hiring temporary nurses. The RNAO’s report estimates this cost to be $168 million, as I am sure the minister is aware, over the next 10 years.

The ONA’s report has some very specific recommendations, as do all these other reports, which the minister can do something about. Some of them are compensation level for nurses, support staff, incentives and improving working relationships.

When is the minister going to recognize that we do know some of the causes of the nursing shortage? Everybody agrees on those. We have a number of excellent recommendations which should be implemented and the minister has to take the lead and do some of this. When is she going to act?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, we have taken action. We have taken action by bringing together-and I have been meeting on an ongoing basis with the elected leadership of nursing to discuss many of these important issues -- those people who share with me the concerns about the impact of retention.

We know it is not simply a question of the number of people entering nursing, because our nursing schools are full. We know we are graduating 4,000 each year. We know that nurses in Ontario are the highest paid in Canada and that the Ontario Nurses’ Association recently concluded a three-year agreement with the Ontario Hospital Association. We know this has to do with working conditions, job satisfaction and societal issues.

What we are attempting to do is recognize that there are issues for the profession, issues for the employers, the hospitals, issues for educators and issues for government. I believe one of the primary roles of government is to bring people together and I am doing that.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Attorney General. In recent weeks there has been a number of cases where sexual assault offenders have received rather lenient sentences, and people across the province are expressing concern about this matter.

Specifically, there is the case of Corey Naesse, who was sentenced to two years less a day for the sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl. This was his third such conviction in as many years. While the minister may want to get back to me on this specific case at some future time, may I ask what is being done presently to ensure that sexual assault cases are properly prosecuted?

Hon. Mr. Scott: In the last two years we have essentially done four things across the province which may be of interest to the honourable member.

The first is that we have asked each crown attorney who prosecutes a sexual assault or a domestic assault case in which he believes the result is either inappropriate or out of line with the minimum results which are anticipated and usually approved by the Court of Appeal to notify us immediately so we can consider whether an appeal is appropriate.

1500

The second thing we have done is established an annual educational program across the 49 districts of Ontario, designed to sensitize members of the crown law staff and, in particular, those staff members who are charged with the prosecution of sexual assault cases to the needs of victims, the techniques of presenting these cases and the kinds of anxieties that persons in the case often confront.

Third, I think we have been among the leaders in Canada, along with the province of Manitoba, in establishing the victim impact statement program and in supporting the federal legislation which will shortly be proclaimed, Bill C-89. In Metropolitan Toronto in particular, for over, I think two years, there has been a victim impact statement program under way. As the honourable member will know, that is an important reservoir of information in sexual and domestic assault cases, as well as others.

Lastly, we have given three directives to the crown, which I will reserve for the supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: That is abundant good sense.

Mr. Daigeler: Mr. Speaker, as you can see, I have given the Attorney General some advance notice about this question so that he can be well informed.

On the same subject, since there will be a private member’s motion next week -- I might say from the third party, which is also interested in this matter -- there is much emphasis, and rightfully so, on the prosecution of offenders, but I think we also have to be concerned about the victims of sexual assault. In this regard, I would like to ask the minister what special initiatives are under way by his ministry to support those who have been the victims of these unfortunate criminal cases?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Having the opportunity, I am sorely tempted to tell the honourable member what Earl Levy, counsel for Mr. Turchiaro, had to say about that particular case, but I think the rules do not permit it so I will confine myself to the answer.

The last point I was going to make to the honourable member was that we have given a number of directives that relate to sexual assault and domestic assault cases. Essentially, them are three. They are sometimes misunderstood by judges but we have tried to be as clear about them as we can.

First of all, we require that each sexual assault case should be assigned by the crown law office to one counsel throughout its process through the court proceedings. This is not only designed to assure efficiency in the prosecution of that case, but also we hope it will assure that the victim and other witnesses will not be subject to interview and reinterview and will develop some sense of confidence in connection with the crown with whom they deal.

Second, we have directed crown attorneys to take an especially strong position on sentence in all sexual assault cases, particularly those that are domestic assault cases.

Third, we have asked our crowns to emphasize to the courts the importance of hearing evidence of the impact of the assault on the victim and to utilize whatever judicial precedents there may be that reflect the gravity of this kind of offence and its impact on our society.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last June I raised my concerns about funding cutbacks, which were severely constraining the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I now understand that Cresap consultants have completed a review of the management and budget of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Unfortunately, this open government failed to involve the public in that review committee report. Can the minister now tell us when the report will be made public?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We are reviewing that report. We ordered a report of the administration because there was some concern among people, including the member herself, as to the expenditures of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. She raised the question herself. She said we were cutting the budget, we were doing terrible things with it, but I do not believe the member really knew what the budget of the Niagara Escarpment Commission was. The only restraint of the Niagara Escarpment Commission was some $34,000 out of a budget of $1.8 million. I would not call that really carving up the budget very much.

Mrs. Grier: The minister has totally evaded the point of my question, which was that in response to the allegations of cutbacks this independent review committee was appointed out of the Premier’s office to look not only at the budget of the Niagara Escarpment Commission but at the relationship of the commission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. It is very important, given the level of concern about the operation of this commission, that the public have an ability to scrutinize the report, to respond to it and to participate.

Can the minister tell us how the government intends to respond to this report and how the public will be able to become involved?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We will respond to that report. When we have an opportunity to discuss it with our people, we will be glad to make available many of the concerns that were raised in that report.

I want the honourable member to know that we are doing many things in regard to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. We have made a very strong commitment to that commission. We meet with the client groups. For the first time, we have had public meetings with the people to get their input with regard to the feelings of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

We have assisted the Niagara Escarpment Commission in special projects totalling something over $300,000. When the member talks about cutting down the budget, she forgets about many of the good things that we are doing for the commission. Would she call $34,000 out of a budget of $1.8 million really carving up that budget? Let us hear the member’s answer.

Mrs. Grier: Why are you afraid to table the report?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: You did not even know what the budget of the Niagara Escarpment Commission was.

Mrs. Grier: Neither did you, John. Come clean.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: No, you did not.

Mr. Breaugh: You get smart and we’ll steal your notes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Markham would like to ask a question.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. I would like to read to the minister something that was sent to me by a constituent, Philip Speller of Thornhill. It is a notice of intent to issue a warrant for an offence committed by Mr. Speller’s daughter. It says, “Accordingly, the court intends to issue a warrant for your committal to prison should this fine remain unpaid.” Do members know what the offence was?

Mr. Faubert: What did she do?

Mr. Cousens: Thank you. It was failure to pay a parking ticket. Mr. Speller’s daughter, as well as hundreds of other people each day, are getting $25 parking tickets at GO Transit stations around Metropolitan Toronto because the lots are full and they have to park illegally.

What is the minister prepared to do to alleviate this headache? Will he speak to his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) about the wording of these notices?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Yes, I will speak to my colleague the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), and perhaps the Attorney General, if the member would like to take it to a higher court, and discuss the nature of the offences as the honourable member has indicated.

Mr. Cousens: I also asked what the minister is prepared to do to alleviate this headache, that was the first question. It is estimated that GO officials in Ontario are taking in $2,500 a day in parking tickets. That is $12,000 a week or $624,000 a year.

What is the minister using this money for? Is he putting it towards improving this situation of no parking at GO stations?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member for Markham should know that the ministry does not retain, nor does any other ministry retain the parking fees. Every time he gets charged with something, he should know that the money does not go to the ministry or the respective government.

But I would like to tell the member, of which he is well aware or should be well aware, of the dramatic increase in service in GO systems, bus and rail, since this government took office. What that has necessitated is that we are probably Ontario’s largest parking lot operator. We have over 19,000 parking spaces. They are full because of the success of the system. They are full because we are very successful. We are the victim of our own success.

We are looking carefully at each individual parking area where there are problems -- there are not problems at all of them, but there are some -- to see where and if expansion can be effected, including some out in my riding, I should point out.

1510

NATURAL GAS PRICING

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The Consumers’ Gas company serves the area which I represent in a territory running from Toronto over to the Niagara Peninsula and also towards eastern Ontario and approximately one million customers. It has come to my attention that the product which they are now purchasing is approximately 12 per cent below last year’s price, and I am aware that this purchase is subject to the Ontario Energy Board’s approval.

My question to the minister is, how detailed will the submissions be to the board? What input will the minister have to ensure that there will be a reduction in the gas bills comparable to the reduction to Consumers’ Gas for what they are buying?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The Ontario Energy Board will be holding public hearings soon on the subject of reviewing the Consumers’ Gas supply contracts. All interested parties will have an opportunity to participate and to submit detailed briefs, if they wish.

I might add that the retail gas rates include the cost of distributing the gas as well as the distributor’s cost of acquiring the gas. The OEB’s job is to determine the final gas rate, based on these costs, and to ensure that these rates are just and reasonable, not only to the end user and the customer but also to the distribution company.

Mr. Owen: I understand that the minister has somewhat of a dilemma because as Canadians we are concerned about the producers, who are facing a severely depressed market with falling prices, and at the same time we have a concern for the consumers in Ontario and what they are paying to the local companies. I am wondering if the minister could comment on what he is trying to do with respect to the dilemma of the western producers and also to getting the best deal for the local consumers of this province.

Hon. Mr. Wong: Since the natural gas industry was deregulated in the fall of 1985, the Ontario government has tried to facilitate the negotiation process between buyers and sellers of natural gas. My officials and I have been meeting regularly with our Alberta counterparts. Just a week ago, I had another meeting, for example, with the Alberta Minister of Energy here in Toronto. I have also been meeting regularly with industry representatives.

Through these discussions, we hope on behalf of Ontario and the western producing provinces to remove the impediments to market activity so that the commercial negotiations can result in prices that are fair to both producers and consumers of natural gas. I therefore want to reiterate that the consultation process is ongoing. I hope to put a comprehensive natural gas policy for Ontario before my cabinet colleagues in the new year.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the Minister of Labour aware of the seriousness of the isocyanates problem in the Libby-Owens-Ford plant in Lindsay? Is he aware that at least eight of the employees have serious cases of sensitization, which I am sure the minister knows is irreversible once it happens. Can he tell us what they are doing about that problem in that plant and about the problem of the company now firing those employees who have been sensitized to isocyanates?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to tell my friend the member for Hamilton East that I certainly am aware of the situation at that plant. In fact, I have had officials from my ministry in contact with both the representatives of the Canadian Auto Workers there and representatives of management.

It is a very serious issue. We are satisfied in our view right now, based on the readings we have taken in the plant, that the levels of isocyanates are below that which is established by regulation. Nevertheless, the member is right that the employees have been terminated. The issue arises whether or not that represents a retaliation for exercising rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. As my friend knows, that is a matter which can be raised either through grievance or by way of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. We will be involved in further discussions to determine what exactly is going to happen in that case.

Mr. Mackenzie: Surely the minister must realize that what you have is simply a revolving-door policy. Once they are sensitized and the fact is proven, the workers are shown the door. Indeed, right now management is going around the plant saying that if there are any more complaints from the workers, it will take a took at shutting down the plant and that it wants the bitching to stop.

The minister must also know that his safety inspector and hygienist are in the plant right now, saying there is nothing wrong with this; all is well in the plant. How can it be well when we have just the tip of the iceberg? Eight are already proved, and the union knows of a number more it is following up who are sensitized to isocyanates. Surely the minister has got to involve himself, and very quickly, in this plant situation.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Hamilton East can just relax for a moment. I can tell him that I have apprised myself of the situation. We have inspectors there and every reading we have done indicates the levels are below those which are established by regulation.

There is some evidence that some members of that workforce have been sensitized to isocyanates, as he says. That is a serious issue, and we are taking it seriously. I do not know if I can give my friend any more assurances, other than that we have officials there. We are looking at it. I am in discussion with the board to see what the ramifications are in terms of that sensitivity and the workers’ right to make a claim to the workers’ compensation system. I am not sure if he has any other suggestions for me.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with regard to the reports on the IDEA Corp. which we received today, both Mr. Biddell’s report and the Provincial Auditor’s report.

I note on page 4 of Mr. Biddell’s report it says:

“My review was not in the nature of an audit. I confined my examination to a review of the material available to directors of IDEA based on which they approved the original investments and a review of memoranda prepared by the staff of IDEA.”

In other words, he looked at what material was in the files.

With regard to the Provincial Auditor’s report, if we look in appendix C of that report, it lists the individuals who were interviewed by the auditor. If we look through that list, we find that none of the investees nor any of the people who may have been alleged to be involved in the influence of the chairman, the president, the minister or his staff were, in fact, interviewed.

How are we going to get to the bottom of this unless we have a public inquiry where these people will be called before it and asked about their involvement in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure the member knows that in support of the observations, he looked at all of the files held by the government and its staff. He reviewed 170 boxes of files. He interviewed about 40 people in addition to officials of investee companies. He employed forensic auditors. He drew on resource materials prepared for two major hearings of the standing committee on public accounts.

I am sure he knows, and again I want to refer the member back to my letter of instruction to the auditor, I put absolutely no restriction on him. I told him to go wherever he felt he should go to seek whatever information he should seek. If he felt that he could not do it because of some sort of constraint, he was to report back to this House. I gave him the undertaking of this government that we would make available to him the proper powers and authorities to allow him to carry on that investigation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: On page 20 of the auditor’s report, I read:

“In an August 1985 letter to the assistant deputy minister, the president” -- that is, the president of the IDEA Corp. -- ”discusses various options for the future of IDEA. In the letter he states that he has had meetings during the previous two weeks with ‘John Kruger, Abe Schwartz, Ivan Fleischmann, Leo Gray, Ian Solomon and others who are, or who claim to be, in a position to determine the fate and future of IDEA Corp. and other crown corporations and government agencies.’”

In view of the fact that only one of those individuals is included in appendix C in terms of having had an interview with the auditor, does the minister not think the public of Ontario has a right to know what the involvement of Abe Schwartz, Ivan Fleischmann, Leo Gray and Ian Solomon has been in this whole affair? The public has a right to know what is going on in this matter, and we demand a public inquiry.

1520

Mr. Speaker: The member has put the question very well. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If I could respond to the member, what we have is a situation where I am sure his strategy is that the best defence is a good offence. I can tell him that the basic reason for this inquiry, when you consider that the standing committee on public accounts looked into this in every possible way --

Mr. Sterling: That’s not true.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is true, and the basic reason for this inquiry was an accusation by the leader of that party that PRA International in London got undue consideration by IDEA Corp. because of his connection with the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

To satisfy that particular accusation, we called on the Provincial Auditor to look at all of the issues related to IDEA Corp. He came back and said there was nothing, no political interference whatsoever. As a matter of fact, what he has said in the report is that nowhere was there any political interference. What he did say was there was some external influence.

Let me quote one thing. If you look at page 21, he says, “in October 1985, another MPP wrote to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology on behalf of a constituent who had been turned down by IDEA. ‘I would be most grateful if you would look into this situation, and if possible, reverse the decision by the IDEA Corporation, or failing that to give me some rationale for the actions that were taken.’”

Mr. Pelissero: Who signed that?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It was the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens). The point that I am making is, so what?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to just remind the members that completes oral questions and responses.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and it is signed by 108 persons which reads, in part, as follows:

“We, the undersigned, want the Lord’s Prayer and scripture readings retained in school opening exercises.”

I have signed same.

TAXES

Mr. Owen: I have a petition signed by 38 people addressed to the Lieutenant Governor on the problem of being taxed on tax. It reads:

“We are already taxed when it comes to income, pensions, purchases or entertainment.

“We are first taxed at our place of employment, then we are taxed on buying merchandise, entertainment and sundries. Our children’s meagre allowances are being taxed.

“For example: wages, pensions, merchandise, cable television, sundries, telephone.

“These are all taxed individually. The average Canadian citizen is barely able to survive with 100 per cent of their wages. The tax bite leaves a little over half being spendable money. The tax on purchases takes another unaffordable bite. There is very little left of our incomes after all these tax bites.

“It is time we protested against being taxed on taxes, it is an injustice to the people and you as our member (elected) of parliament act on our behalf.”

I have signed the same.

MOTION

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the estimates of the Ministry of Health be considered in the committee of supply before the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services and that notwithstanding the sequence established for the consideration of estimates referred to the committee of supply, the estimates of the Office of the Premier, Cabinet Office and Office of the Lieutenant Governor be considered on Thursday, December 8, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved second reading of Bill 175, An Act respecting transfers of Water.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today I would like to bring Bill 175, the Water Transfer Control Act, before the House for second reading. This legislation is important because it helps ensure a secure supply of water for Ontarians and Canadians now and for the future.

Last week in question period, members were discussing the bill and it became clear to me that there are some misconceptions regarding its intent. Bill 175 is intended to ensure control over any and all proposed water transfers -- transfers within Ontario, to other provinces in Canada and to other countries.

The discussion last week centred on the export of water. One of our objectives with this bill, as I have stated from the outset, has been to provide authority for the government to prohibit transfer of Ontario’s water to other countries, including the United States.

Let me repeat what I said when I introduced this bill for first reading in June. I said then: “This government is concerned that the proposed free trade agreement places control of Canada’s water supply at risk. We believe that the failure to expressly exclude water exports from the agreement opens a door we think ought to be closed.”

I introduced this bill to close that door and, as I said in June, to reassure the people of Ontario of their government’s determination to prevent the free trade agreement from creating uncertainty about Ontario’s water supply. I am as strongly committed to that position now as I was then. That is why I will discuss in a moment the amendments I would like to propose, to state in legislation this policy with regard to the exports of water outside Canada.

What is misunderstood about this bill is the importance of enacting legislation that provides the Ontario government with the power to refuse or approve water transfers within Ontario or Canada. On Wednesday, November 2, during debate, I informed the House that I would be prepared to accept an amendment to the Water Transfer Control Act to make it absolutely clear that our water cannot be exported outside Canada.

On Thursday, November 3, I received a submission from the New Democratic Party proposing an amendment to Bill 175 that would prohibit any and all water transfers, not just exports to other countries. This proposal ignores Ontario’s domestic responsibility. Ontario must keep its options open regarding transfers within the province and within Canada.

Let me give an example. Since 1913, Ontario has granted the city of Winnipeg approval to direct and take water from Shoal Lake for domestic purposes. We are pleased to be able to provide this supply to a sister province. I should add that if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) had been around in 1913 -- he actually just looks that way -- with his proposals on water transfers, the city of Winnipeg would not have the water supply it enjoys now. We would not have been able to allow such a transfer. Clearly, that is not how this government plans to treat other parts of Canada.

There are other reasons for keeping our options open. If scientists are correct and our climate continues to change dramatically, hot dry summers like the one we experienced this year may become more commonplace and actions to counteract drought may be required. There may well come a day when our government may want to be able to transfer water from one part of Ontario to another, or from Ontario to another part of Canada. They may need it to battle severe drought or to stimulate economic development. Should that day come, our ability to control and manage our water supply must not prevent us from helping water-short areas of Ontario or Canada. Bill 175 gives us this control and flexibility.

However, any proposed transfer must be examined with care. Water transferred from a provincial drainage basin is permanently lost to that basin. Therefore, a decision to transfer cannot be taken lightly.

1530

The bill allows the minister to impose any condition on a transfer that may be necessary; for example, to protect Ontario’s local economy or our environment. It also clearly indicates that transfers will not be approved where they may be detrimental to ensuring a secure water supply.

To further strengthen Ontario’s ability to protect and control its water supply, I am introducing a number of amendments to Bill 175. One amendment makes it clear that all water, except spring water and mineral water bottled as a beverage for human consumption, is subject to the act.

Another simplifies the act by recognizing that the Great Lakes function as a single provincial drainage basin. As I said previously, the day may come when we have to consider the possibility of transfers to help the people of Ontario and the people of Canada.

Progressive Conservative members have suggested that Bill 175 is inferior to the federal Canada Water Preservation Act. The free trade agreement allows for the possibility of water exports to the United States, despite the statements of the Conservative government.

The Canada Water Preservation Act introduced at the last minute before Parliament dissolved and, I might say, in response to a bill we moved here, is of no assistance; that act died on the order paper and therefore offers no protection at all. We want that protection and we intend to provide it through Ontario legislation.

It would appear that all three parties agree that we should not export our water outside Canada. Therefore, I am introducing an amendment to the Water Transfer Control Act which states that the Minister of Natural Resources will not approve any transfer of water to a place outside Canada.

With this amendment, we are enshrining in legislation our policy that Ontario’s precious water resources are not for export outside Canada; our water resources are for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada. Together, the amendments I am introducing further strengthen Ontario’s ability to assert control over its water resources.

This government recognizes water as a precious, limited, strategic resource, one vital to the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of Ontario and Canada.

Of course, amendments will be distributed to the members in the usual way. I would ask members to support speedy passage of this bill. We must reassure the people of Ontario of their government’s determination to protect our water resources.

Mr. Wildman: I have a question. As the minister has argued that the main purpose of the bill is to control transfers within Canada, and he is going to have an amendment that will do what he should have done last June -- that is, to protect against the transfer of water outside of Canada -- if he is concerned mainly about controlling the transfer of water from Ontario drainage basins to other parts of Canada, such as the use of water from Shoal Lake by the city of Winnipeg, which has been done since 1913, can the minister please explain why he needs legislation now, as it has been done since 1913?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am hoping I am going to get the kind of support this bill deserves, and I am not going to get into any kind of dialogue that would take away from the importance of the bill.

I shared my thoughts with the leader of the official opposition that my intentions were exactly as they were described: to protect this valuable resource. The member brings up a very interesting question about why we are doing it now and not in 1913. I would suggest that the reason --

Mr. Villeneuve: Political posturing. Could it be political posturing?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I like that; the camera should be on the member once in a while when he comes back with those strange hee-haws.

The intent of the bill was to make certain that our water was protected. In the ensuing examination of that bill and the thought that the official opposition was not prepared to support the bill, we were proving to them there was a need to have a bill that would address the movement of water from one basin to another within Canada and within Ontario. That just was not done before. There is no other reason for that. There just was not the requirement.

But when we look at the question of water going into the United States and, indeed, the threat of the free trade agreement, where obviously there are going to be great requests for water from Ontario; number one, you put a bill, and then you have to put a bill that is going to encompass all of these situations that have existed, that were not covered. I must say it was not covered. Now, if we wanted to do it again, we certainly would not hesitate to give the city of Winnipeg approval to take water from Shoal Lake, but at least it is covered. Now, whenever those things are going to take place, they would have to have the official blessing of the government of Ontario. I do not see that that is strange at all.

Le Vice-Président: Est-ce qu’il y a d’autres députés qui veulent participer au débat? Le député d’Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate because I think it is unfortunate to have the minister put into a situation of having to rationalize this legislation before the House in such a manner. It is unfortunate that we now find ourselves redrafting a piece of legislation on the floor of the House, because that is, in fact, what is going to happen in this debate. After we complete second reading, we are going to have to rewrite this legislation completely, because it never did what it purported to do; it could not have.

I rise in this debate in two aspects. Number one, we have to put it into the context of the great debate that is going on within our country today about our trading relationship with the United States and with other countries around the world. The government indicated that this was a piece of legislation that was supposed to indicate its opposition to the Mulroney trade pact with the President of the United States.

When it was shown by my leader that this legislation did not do that, the minister indicated he was prepared to accept amendments. We have provided amendments, and he has said he is going to provide amendments as well, and we will be debating those amendments after second reading. It was also interesting that the minister then went outside of this place, and repeated subsequently in this assembly, that the real reason for this bill, which dealt with approving transfers of water, was to deal with transfers within the country, and the government did not want to cut off the possibility of transferring water to Manitoba, Quebec or somewhere else in the future.

Every one of us in this House knows that was a rationalization; that was grasping at straws by the minister to be able to try to say that this piece of legislation was not as worthless as it really was. I think the minister must have been terribly embarrassed to have to defend this piece of legislation before the House, and I think that was indicated in his agreement to accept amendments so quickly when the matter was raised in the Legislature. The fact is that either whoever drafted this legislation did not know what the minister wanted or the minister did not really want to prohibit the export of water, because the legislation that was introduced by the minister did not do that. As a matter of fact, the legislation set up a regime, a process, for allowing, for approving the transfer of water to the United States and for setting out ways to ensure that Ontario could get revenue from that transfer.

The other aspect I want to deal with in discussing this legislation is in relation to the protection of our water resource. It is completely separate from the issue of free trade, but I want to deal with the so-called free trade agreement first.

1540

As I said earlier in this House this afternoon, ever since the federal Conservative Party, under the leadership of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, initiated negotiations with the Reagan administration for a trade agreement with our southern neighbour, a trade agreement that would involve the complete integration of our two economies, we in this party have pressed the federal Conservatives and the provincial Liberal government to take action that would protect the interests of the people of this province and this country.

What did we get in response? We got a lot of rhetoric prior to the last election and then we got a lot of election rhetoric about what this government, what the Liberal Party of Ontario was going to do to protect Ontario’s interests. But we got no action. We got none at all.

Finally, after a long wait, we got the introduction at the end of June, not long before the House recessed, of three so-called anti-free trade bills by this government, one of which was the water bill we are discussing now.

When the minister introduced his bill in the House, he made a statement under the order of ministerial statements in which he said, as he repeated here this afternoon, that he was closing the door on the export of water from the provincial drainage basin to the United States.

In an immediate response to that, I indicated on behalf of our party that we were certainly in favour of that principle. That is what we have been fighting for during the discussion of this debate, that we favoured the closing of the door, to use the minister’s term, to the export of water from our drainage basin to the United States. For that reason, we could support a bill that did that. I suppose I took the minister’s word at the time that his bill would in fact do that.

Instead, when we got the bill and started to analyse it, we found that the major part of the legislation dealt not with how to stop exports but rather with how to facilitate exports and how much should be charged for those exports, how a ministerial approval might be obtained and in what cases it might be denied, but mostly with how approval could be obtained and what would subsequently be required of the individual who got approval for the export, how the payments would be made, the kind of inspections that would have to be done and all these sorts of things.

Instead of closing the door on exports of water from this drainage basin to the United States, what the minister’s legislation did was set up a toll-gate. The main purpose of the legislation was to get revenue into the provincial Treasury for the transfer of water to the United States. That is how the bill is written, even if the minister did not intend that, as he said when he said he wanted to get amendments.

Mr. Ballinger: Do you ever make a mistake, Bud?

Mr. Wildman: Certainly I have made mistakes. I understand the minister has made a mistake in this case and that he is now ready to try to rectify it by introducing amendments.

Why, then, does the minister try to pretend that those sections of the bill that we objected to were not really supposed to be allowing for export of water but rather were to deal just with the transfer of water to Manitoba, for instance?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Charles Wildman.

Mr. Wildman: I do not understand why the minister could not just have gotten up and said, “It didn’t do what we really wanted to do, and that’s why I am ready to take amendments,” and just left it at that, saying, “Okay, we’ll look at the amendments, we’ll propose amendments and we’ll see what can be done.”

I suppose it could have been just an honest mistake, but I think the reason this happened was not just that a mistake was made by the drafters of the legislation but that it really reflected the attitude of the Liberal government towards the whole free trade controversy.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Charles, where is your Carleton county judgement?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: You are just on the edge of imputing motives.

Mr. Wildman: No, I am not imputing motives. I think it is quite true that this government has been saying for so many months now that it is in opposition to the free trade agreement; but it has also said, and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has repeated it from time to time, that he is not opposed to a trade agreement, just this trade agreement that has been negotiated by Mr. Mulroney. He has said that we have, as we all admit, a major trading relationship with the United States and that there is room for the negotiation of some kind of agreement that would provide us with access into the US market.

This government has never been opposed to the kind of free trade agreement that has been talked about by people like Simon Reisman in the past. Neither this Premier nor his federal leader has stated that either of them is opposed to a long-term trade agreement with the United States. What they have said is that they are opposed to this agreement that has been negotiated by Mr. Mulroney.

In drafting the legislation, it must have been difficult for the people who were responsible in the ministry, because they knew that the government was not opposed to the export of many products to the United States but rather that they wanted some kind of regulation of those exports; a bill that appeared to prohibit the export of water but, in the long run, would allow for it under certain circumstances. I have some sympathy with the people who were trying to draft the legislation, because we had a lot of rhetoric from the government on the one side, but on the other side there was always the possibility that we could have such kinds of arrangements with the United States.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Charles.

Mr. Wildman: Now, the House leader keeps referring to me by my, I think it is sometimes called a Christian name.

Mr. Mackenzie: He thinks we should trust him; that’s all.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mackenzie: He thinks we should trust him. Can you imagine that?

Hon. Mr. Conway: You would expect a Carleton county boy to be sensible.

Mr. Wildman: I am very proud of coming from eastern Ontario, as you do, Mr. Speaker, and as does the House leader for the government. However, I do not quite see the relationship between my roots in Carleton county and the debate that is before us. The minister obviously does not like to deal with the issue of how this government is really prepared to have a few minor tinkering changes done to the free trade agreement and in the long run end up with an agreement with the United States if the Liberal Party is able to achieve victory on November 21.

Hon. Mr. Conway: You can’t be so cynical.

Mr. Wildman: I have observed for many years the operations of the government, the previous government and now this government since 1985, and if anything has made me cynical, it is the way those two parties have operated in this Legislature and across this province.

The bill, we know, was not designed, really, to prohibit or even to limit water exports, but rather to allow for their sale and to set out how much would be required to be paid.

Interjection.

Mr. Wildman: Water has been central to the debate, not only on the Magpie project, as referred to by the Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway) in northern Ontario, but also on the whole question of major transfers from the northern watershed, first into the Great Lakes basin and then into the United States.

1550

Even before Mr. Mulroney was converted to the idea of a free trade agreement with the United States, we had significant leaders in this country who were talking about a major transfer of water. We had Tom Kierans and Simon Reisman who were major proponents of what is called the GRAND Canal project.

For those members of the House who are not familiar with the GRAND Canal project, it is a proposal that would put a dam across the northern extremity of James Bay and separate it from Hudson Bay, turn James Bay into a freshwater lake and then construct canals along what is generally northwestern Quebec near the Ontario border, over the height of land. It would use nuclear power to pump the water over the height of land, bring it into the northern Ottawa River valley and then transport it across the water link through to Lake Nipissing and into Lake Huron and Lake Superior, into the Great Lakes water basin.

Then water would be available for transfer through Lake Michigan into the midwestern United States, Chicago and farther south, and eventually into the sun-parched southwestern areas that are certainly in great need of water, or it would transfer water from the western extremities of Lake Superior into the Lake of the Woods basin and so on into western Canada or into the far northwest of the United States.

Some would call it a visionary concept. It certainly is a concept that would be a tremendous construction megaproject that would have enormous environmental impacts in northern Ontario and in the Great Lakes basin. It would significantly raise the water levels in the Great Lakes, which happen to be a little low right now but which only a couple of years ago were at record levels. It would change substantially the shoreline of Lake Superior and Lake Huron and to a lesser extent some of the other Great Lakes. It would have drastic effects on shoreline properties, on fish life and on water life in the Great Lakes. As well, there is the question whether or not it is in any way feasible even to conceive of such a megaproject.

It is significant that one of the main proponents of that project was Simon Reisman who, we all know, historically has been a well-known Liberal. He has negotiated trade agreements with the United States in the past, such as the auto pact which has been very successful and which was a very important development in the early 1960s. But he was chosen by the Conservative Prime Minister of this country to enter into negotiations with the United States.

Hon. Mr. Conway: He’s now making Tory ads, Bud.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Wildman: Is it not interesting how easy it is for people at that level to switch between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, depending on the political circumstances at any particular time in this country? I think it is significant, though --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Without stopping anywhere.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio); one member at a time. The member will ignore the interjections.

Interjection.

Mr. Wildman: I frankly do not appreciate having the House leader of the Liberal Party refer to me in the same breath as the gentleman from Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger). What the minister purports to know about my political past, I am not certain. I suppose he may be referring to the fact that my father was a well-known Conservative in Carleton county, but the fact my father was a well-known Conservative has little or nothing to do with my political background.

Mr. Villeneuve: Where did you go wrong?

Mr. Wildman: The member for the united counties asks, “Where did you go wrong?” I remember the first day I entered this Legislative Assembly. There was a well-known and venerable predecessor of his, or certainly in that chair, a Donald Morrow, who was still a member of the Legislature at that time. He came across the floor and said to me, “Your name is Wildman.” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Your father is Jack Wildman.” I said, “Yes.” He said, “But he is a well-known Conservative.” I said, “Yes, he is, and I have never been one.” Then he asked, “What happened to you?” I said, “I saw the light.”

The fact that my father was a Conservative, though, would not have influenced him to support such a grandiose project as the GRAND Canal. My father, I am proud to say, besides being a well-known Conservative was also a well-known Canadian nationalist who never would have agreed to the sellout of our resources to a foreign country, the kind of sellout that was suggested in this legislation until the minister was suddenly brought to his come-uppance by my leader and said, “Yes, I agree that it does not do what it is supposed to do and we should amend the legislation.”

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have respect for your leader.

Mr. Ballinger: This is your life, Bud Wildman.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Do you think you made a bum move, Bud?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member will ignore the interjections.

Mr. Wildman: I was diverted by the House leader’s referring to my antecedents. I will say that while I have never agreed with the politics of my father, I am proud to have learned from him the value of this country and its resources, and to have made one of my main concerns in my political life and my political career the desire to protect our natural heritage and to ensure that we never enter into the kind of agreement that would tie us to the continuing export of any of our raw resources, which could and should be used in this country to produce wealth here.

The fact that one of the main proponents of the GRAND Canal project was also the main negotiator for this country in the Mulroney trade negotiations, I think is an indication of what we have to fear from the Mulroney deal. In the federal House of Commons, members of the opposition parties raised the possibility of major transfers of water under the final text of the deal. The federal Conservatives said no, this was not possible. The fact that they backed down and said yes, it could be done, could be interpreted in that way, and therefore introduced a piece of legislation that they said was going to stop it, but which unfortunately is not as effective as it should be, is an indication of what we have to face under this proposed trade agreement.

What has been the approach of the provincial Liberals to dealing with that agreement? First, way back before the election, the Premier stated, after he had entered into discussions with the other premiers and with the Prime Minister, that he believed he had a veto, not only over the final pact but over the negotiations. He said that the people of this assembly and the people of Ontario should be assured that he would protect Ontario’s interests and Canada’s interests, and if, in any way, they were threatened by negotiations, he would exercise the veto he believed he had.

When we in this party suggested that he should indeed exercise the veto, what was his response? He said it would be premature to cut off negotiations, to exercise the veto, until he saw the terms of the pact. After all, he said, the agreement conceivably might be good for Ontario and it would be irresponsible for a Premier of this province to cut off negotiations that might lead to a pact that was good for Ontario.

1600

Nobody in our party believed that any negotiations being carried on by Simon Reisman for the Prime Minister of Canada with the United States would lead to a pact that would be good for Ontario. We said that.

We have been proposing for years the need to do a number of things in our trading relationships. One is that we need to diversify our trading relationships. We need to increase our exports, not only to Europe but also to the Pacific Rim. There are many economists who suggest that in the 21st century the main growth area in the world economy will be the nations of the Pacific Rim, not just Japan or Korea, but Taiwan, China, the Philippines and Singapore, that those nations will be the main expanding economies in the world. Those are the nations we should be concentrating on trying to improve our relationship with, through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations and others, to bring down tariff barriers so we would have access to markets and expand and diversify our trading relationships.

We also said that in our relationship with our main trading partner, the United States, we should be negotiating pacts similar to the one Simon Reisman negotiated in the 1960s, the auto pact, which is not a free trade agreement but rather a managed trade agreement. If the auto pact were indeed a free-trading agreement, there would not be nearly the number of auto assembly plants in Ontario as there are under that agreement. It is interesting that under the final agreement negotiated by Mr. Reisman, the possibility of future auto pacts with other nations, such as Japan, is strictly prohibited for Canada and for Ontario.

We were suggesting there were alternatives. However, the Liberal Premier said he did not want to go against the Conservative federal government initially, because it might be premature. He did not want to exercise a veto.

During the election campaign, of course, the Premier became more specific. He said, on behalf of his party, that there were six conditions that must be met in order for this government to accept a trading pact with the United States. I will not go through all of that again. It has been debated at length in this House. We know what the six conditions were. We also know the Premier said the bottom line was that if those conditions were not met, particularly with relation to protection of the auto pact, there would be no deal. We said: “All right then; if you believe you have a veto, and you have set out six conditions, we expect that the bottom line will be the Premier of Ontario will stop the negotiations and prohibit any ratification of this agreement.”

After all, all we had to go on was the commercial that was run during the election campaign by the Liberal Party of Ontario. That was a tremendous commercial. I congratulate the apparatchiks in the Liberal Party who were responsible for designing that commercial, or the advertising firm that did the work for them, because if there was anything cynical in the election campaign, it was that commercial. It said something to everybody on every conceivable side of the free trade argument.

If you were in favour of free trade, that commercial and the Premier speaking in that commercial said to you, “If it’s a good deal for Ontario, then we’ll agree to it.” If you were opposed to the free trade agreement, that commercial said to you, “Unless six conditions are met, the bottom line is there will be no deal.” If you were, like many people in this province and across Canada, a little unsure about the free trade agreement, it gave you the assurance that the Premier would protect the interests of Ontario and of Canada by ensuring that if the free trade agreement in any way threatened the interests of Ontario, he would stop it.

It was a very effective commercial. Perhaps I was a little naïve, I thought, after hearing that commercial and after hearing the speeches made by the Premier during the election campaign, that after he won such an enormous mandate, the Liberal Premier of Ontario would indeed stop the deal.

What happened after the election? The first thing that happened after the election with regard to the free trade deal was a statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) in the estimates debate on his ministry. In that debate, I recall that the member for Wilson Heights said: “Well, the Premier, in the election debate, did not really mean that he was against the deal, or any deal, completely. What he really meant was maybe there could be a deal if it was good for Ontario.” Already, we had the government backing off from its so-called commitment to stop the deal.

In answer to questions in the Legislature, the Premier said he did not want to prejudge the terms of the deal. He said before he took any action to stop it, he would have to see the exact terms of the agreement. Not long after that, we got the draft terms of the agreement. It was obvious that in those draft terms not one of the six conditions set out by the Premier in the election campaign was met. Frankly, the Premier agreed that not one of those conditions was met. Did he take action? No, he did not. Instead, the Premier said that we would have to see the final agreement before he and his government would take any action.

Late in the year 1987, we did finally get the final text. Again, it was obvious that while there had been a few minor changes, the six conditions set out by the Premier had not been met. As a matter of fact, in answer to questions in the House, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) suggested that perhaps the free trade agreement, if it was ratified, would be unconstitutional.

In answer to the questions of my leader, did he say he would go to court? No. He said the problem with going to court was that the government and the lawyers representing the government might lose. I always thought that was what happened in court. You went to court and if you made your arguments well and if they were well-founded, they would be judged and you would win; if they were not well-founded, you might lose. The Attorney General said, “No, we might lose, so we do not want to go to court.” So they did not go to court. This government just did nothing.

We said to the Premier, “Well, if you think it is unconstitutional, why then don’t you exercise the veto you claim you have had all along?” The Premier said, “No, we must wait until we see how the final terms of the agreement, which we now have, are implemented before we take any action.”

The fact is this government has not taken any action. It has not done anything. It has talked a good game against free trade. It has persuaded the people of this province that this government is opposed to free trade, but it has not done anything in any meaningful way to protect the interests of this province against the negotiation and ratification of a deal.

1610

It is our view that this deal negotiated by the federal government threatens Canadian sovereignty. I sincerely believe that. I think it means that our economies, the two economies in North America will be so drastically integrated over the 10-year transition period that it will be impossible to disentangle our relationship, even if we have a government that is prepared to exercise the opting-out clause Mr. Mulroney keeps referring to.

That is why I am most disappointed that the Liberal Party of Ontario did not act, did not exercise the veto, that the Premier did not use the enormous mandate he won in 1987 to protect the interests of this country. All that the Premier and his colleagues have done, have said is, “We are concerned about the deal. We don’t think it’s a good deal. We’re opposed to the deal, but we’re not going to do anything,” until the end of June when we had the introduction of the three pieces of anti-free-trade legislation.

It is interesting to look at those pieces of legislation. We have before us the Water Transfer Control Act. The government also introduced the Power Corporation Amendment Act. It is interesting to recognize what has happened with that energy act. The government not only has agreed to say that it should be amended, as it has done with this legislation, it has actually withdrawn that piece of legislation and said, “Well, we’ll have to come back with a new one later on.”

The fact is that not one of the three pieces of legislation introduced in June really had any teeth in it to do anything about the free trade legislation. But they were convenient. There was a nice media production. It was something to get media, to say, “Okay, we’re opposed,” to remind people that the Liberal Party was not in favour of the free trade agreement while at the same time not really meaning anything in terms of challenging the federal government and challenging the free trade agreement.

It is very similar to the commercial they ran during the election campaign. It could mean all things to all people. With regard to the legislation, with regard to the bill we are discussing, it could mean, if you were against free trade in water, that this government was putting regulations on the transfer of water outside the country; while if you were in favour of the export of water as a way of gaining revenue for this country and this province, then you could be in favour of the legislation because it allowed for it.

I would like to turn specifically to the bill now, to talk about some of our concerns about that legislation. Bill 175 states, in its explanatory note, “The purpose of the bill is to ensure for Ontario and Canada a secure supply of water.” Then it says, “The bill prohibits the transfer of water out of a provincial drainage basin...” If it had ended at that in the explanatory note, then it would have been, as far as we are concerned, a real challenge to the free trade agreement. But it does not stop there. There is another phrase on the end of that sentence.

It says, “The bill prohibits the transfer of water out of a provincial drainage basin without the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources.” In other words, what that means is, that is the same as saying the bill will allow for the transfer of water out of the provincial drainage basin with the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Then it goes on to say, “The minister is authorized to attach conditions to an approval and to require payment for a transfer of water.” It then goes on to say, “Approval will be refused or revoked if the minister is of the opinion that the transfer is or may be detrimental to ensuring a secure water supply for Ontario or Canada or any part thereof.” But that is an afterthought.

The point is that the main portion of the bill, even in the explanatory note, deals with approvals by the Minister of Natural Resources for the transfer of water. So it can hardly really be seen by anyone as a challenge to the free trade agreement.

In the legislation, there are a number of references to approval. In section 1, it deals with approval and regulations under the act which would allow for approval.

It then gets on to section 2 which deals with prohibition. It says: “No person shall transfer water out of a provincial drainage basin by any means....” Again, if it had stopped there, it would indeed be a challenge to the free trade agreement. But it did not stop there. It then says, “...without the written approval of the minister.” Again, it says, in other words, with the written approval of the minister, a person shall be able to transfer water out of a provincial drainage basin.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Winnipeg.

Mr. Wildman: The minister now says he is referring to interprovincial transfers of water, such as the transfer of water from Shoal Lake to Winnipeg, but members will recall that in the discussion of the bill at the time it was introduced in June, there was no reference specifically to Winnipeg or Manitoba or Shoal Lake at all. Instead, the minister said he was closing the door on exports to the United States. The question is: How can you close the door on exports to the United States if it specifically states in the bill that you can get written approval from the minister in some cases to transfer water? That is what the bill says.

The bill goes on to say, “A person who requests approval to transfer water...” It does not say “to transfer water out of the country.” It just says: “A person who requests approval to transfer water out of a provincial drainage basin shall submit to the minister plans, reports, studies and other information as are prescribed or as may be requested by the minister.” Nowhere does it say “a person who requests the transfer of water out of the country.”

I believe we are dealing with the question of the transfer of water, the principle of the legislation. The legislation as presented in the House is inadequate, and the minister himself has admitted it and that is why he is moving an amendment.

We have not seen the amendments. We in this House can hardly be expected to speak to the amendments when we have not seen them. The minister has not supplied us with the amendments.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We have them now.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, we have just received the amendments. Okay.

When my leader raised questions about this, the minister, as he has indicated, said he would accept amendments.

We looked at the bill and said, “What should be done with this bill in order to challenge the free trade agreement and at the same time protect Ontario’s water resources?” We looked at the legislation and came to the conclusion that sections 3 through 8 should be removed from the bill.

Again, section 3 talks about how to get approval from the minister by supplying studies. Section 4 talks about the amounts of money; how the minister will determine what is appropriate to be charged for the transfer of water. It also deals with how the payments will be made once the minister has set the payment levels. It states, for instance, under what conditions an approval might or might not be given and so on.

If the government had been really serious about prohibiting water transfers out of this province to the United States, not one of sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 would have been included in the original draft of the legislation.

1620

The minister has referred in his remarks to the federal legislation that was introduced after the concerns were raised by the opposition about the possibility of water transfers. The legislation recalled Bill C-156, Canada Water Protection Act. In that act, under section 9, “The minister may on application issue a licence authorizing the exportation or diversion of water.” It requires information to be provided and so on and talks about how payments can be arrived at for a fee to allow for the export of water.

So even the federal legislation provided by the Conservatives, which they have claimed will protect us from the wholesale transport of our water resources to the United States, does not do that at all either. I suppose that perhaps the provincial legislation may have influenced the drafting of the federal legislation, as the minister says.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The same draftsman.

Mr. Wildman: Exactly. The minister says that because of the introduction of this legislation in the provincial House, the government of Canada introduced this legislation. Well, the government of Canada’s legislation allows for the export of water. They followed this government’s example.

There are other sections. My colleague has provided me with a copy of section 5. It says here, “No person shall for the purpose of exporting water, divert water into boundary waters where,” and then it sets limits. All the federal government’s legislation does is set limits on the transfer of water, but still allows for it and allows for approvals. They must have followed this government’s example. In fact, the provincial Minister of Natural Resources, I suppose, encouraged the federal government to allow for the export of water, because as he says, his bill is the one that influenced the drafting of the federal legislation.

It is obvious, from looking at the legislation as drafted, that this government was not really serious about stopping the export. As I have said, it was not really serious about challenging the free trade agreement. I am glad that the minister has now said he is interested in accepting amendments. But I wonder, after these bills have been on the order paper for so long, why it was so important to the government that we should be debating these pieces of legislation this week. I also wonder why it is that the minister, as soon as questions were raised about this legislation and the legislation was shown to be a vehicle for export of water, said he would accept amendments that would prohibit the export of water.

We know this whole exercise has been a political exercise from beginning to end, an attempt to show that this government is opposed to the free trade agreement and trying to influence the outcome of the federal election campaign, when in fact the government never was serious about this legislation and was embarrassed about this legislation when it was shown that it was not going to do what the government said it was going to do.

I want to deal not with just the free trade agreement, I want to deal with the import of this legislation with regard to the preservation of our water resources, particularly in northern Ontario but throughout the province. I have already talked about the GRAND Canal project and how I am concerned about the fact that there are many Conservative and Liberal financial leaders in this country who have been hoodwinked into dreaming that there could be a GRAND Canal project and it might be feasible, despite all the ecological problems that would produce.

I also want to talk about the minister’s view of the interprovincial transfer of water. As the minister indicated, the city of Winnipeg has been obtaining water from Shoal Lake since the early part of this century. As I indicated in response to the minister’s comments, if Winnipeg has been getting water from Shoal Lake since 1913, we do not need legislation now to deal with that, to allow for it and to ensure that it can go --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Order. The member for Algoma has the floor and would like the opportunity to address the assembly.

Mr. Wildman: I would be happy to allow the minister to try to defend this terribly poorly drafted piece of legislation. If he thinks he needs more time and he did not use enough time at the beginning to explain, to rationalize and to try to convince the members of this assembly and the people of this province that he is really concerned about the protection of our water resources rather than exporting the water to the United States and then getting revenue from it to this province, I would be quite happy to have the minister proceed, although I do not think it is within the rules of the House to allow him to speak twice on second reading.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We will give him unanimous consent.

Mr. Wildman: I would be prepared to give him unanimous consent, particularly if he were prepared to accept an amendment or to propose an amendment to his legislation which will say exactly the same thing as the amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons. In the bill put forward by Mr. Riis, section 9 --

Mr. Ballinger: What makes you guys think you’re so smart?

Mr. Wildman: It does not take a genius to know this. All we have to say is “No person shall export water out of Canada,” period.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Well, I’m putting that kind of an amendment in if you would give me time. That’s all you have to do: sit down and let me do it.

Mr. Wildman: Why was he not able to do that in June? Because we know they never really intended to do it. The only reason they are doing it now is because we have shown the people of this province that this legislation was not designed to prohibit exports but rather to facilitate them.

I want to deal with the interprovincial transfer of water which the minister has been referring to. Obviously, there is a long-standing relationship between southern Manitoba -- mostly Winnipeg -- and northwestern Ontario with regard to water; but we also know that if the weather conditions that we experienced this year continue, with drastic effects on the soil of the southern prairies in Canada, there are going to be more and more demands for the water of northern Ontario, particularly northwestern Ontario.

While I recognize that we should accept the responsibility to assist in the development of irrigation projects that would help western Canada, because they benefit us all if they are well designed, rather than the rather poorly designed ones in southern California that have produced salinification of many of the areas that have been irrigated over the years --

Mr. Ballinger: How do you spell that?

Mr. Wildman: It means too much salt in the soil.

I am very concerned about a bill that purports to set up a regime for the potentially increased transfer of water out of the northwest to other parts of Canada, and I will say why. We in the more southern parts of the province, even our provincial government, are not the only stewards of that water resource. There are a number of Indian treaties that govern those areas of the northwest, particularly Treaty 3 and Treaty 9.

1630

I wonder if the drafters of this legislation, when they looked at the possibility of the transfer of more water out of the northwest into western Canada, considered the interests of the aboriginal people, the treaty Indian bands in those areas.

The minister has referred to Shoal Lake. We know there are two bands on Shoal Lake now that have problems with water levels. There have been examples in other parts of the north where Ontario Hydro has adversely affected the life of the bands because of fluctuation in water levels. We have had experiences in this province, unfortunately, where we have poisoned the water of Indian bands, the most infamous one being the situation in the English-Wabigoon drainage basin.

All I am saying is that there is another interest. There are other people who are dependent on that water resource and who see themselves also as stewards of that resource. I am concerned about any attempt to give this government an authority to increase water exports that does not involve the proper consultation of the Indian bands and the treaty organizations in the northwestern part of the province.

Also, for obvious reasons, I am very concerned about any transfer of water that is not properly investigated under the Environmental Assessment Act. I do not see any reference in this bill, as yet at least, to environmental assessment. I do not see any reference in this bill to the protection of the ecology from the possible adverse effects of significant water diversions. Perhaps the minister intends to include those in his amendments.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I don’t see them. He will sell us out again.

Mr. Wildman: I hope he does not. I hope the minister will include in his amendments reference to proper consultation with the other stewards of the resource. That consultation could be done in the context of a proper and widespread environmental assessment of any water diversion proposal. I would hope that the minister would refer to that in his legislation so that he does not just see the transfer of water as a revenue-getter for the provincial government but sees it in the context not only of the people who are affected but of the flora and fauna that will be affected.

As the minister himself said, once we take water out of a drainage basin it can never be replaced. If we ever, heaven forbid, get into the major megaprojects like the GRAND Canal, there will be devastating ecological effects. To have no reference to a proper environmental assessment I think is a most inadequate approach.

I will conclude by saying this. This party, right from the beginning, has been categorically opposed to a further integration of our economy with the economy of the United States. We recognize that we are the major trading partner of the United States and Ontario is one of the largest, if not the largest, trading partners of the United States. We recognize that we need access to the American market for our products, whether they be raw materials or manufactured products. We also recognize that the Americans need our raw materials.

We recognize there has been protectionism growing in the United States and there needed to be some sorts of arrangements for dealing with disputes between us and our trading partner, but we have been working for proper dispute settlement mechanisms and for managed trade agreements similar to the auto pact, not a wide-ranging free trade agreement which would not only affect the economic relationship between the United States and Canada but also affect the way we can govern our own nation and our own province, which would affect the kinds of services that we could provide to our people, whether they be social services or medicare services. We have opposed that from the beginning and we have suggested alternatives that I referred to before.

We have been requesting that this provincial government stand up for the rights and the interests of the people of this province against the kind of pact that was negotiated by the federal government. This government has talked a good line, but the government has not done anything. The only thing it has done is introduce three pieces of legislation, one which it is not proceeding with, one which it has withdrawn and one which has to be completely redrafted by amendment.

This government was never serious about actually acting in opposition to the free trade pact. They proved it with this meaningless piece of legislation. I think we can amend this bill so that it can protect the water resources of this province, if the government and the members of the assembly are serious about that. It is unfortunate that the government itself could not come up with those kinds of amendments without pressure from the opposition. It is an indication that they were not serious when they introduced this legislation, that it was just a political move to influence the federal election scene. That is why we are debating it now.

As a northerner, as an Ontarian, as a member of this assembly and as a New Democrat I am determined to do all I can with the members of my party to protect the water resource of this province, to ensure that we are giving it proper stewardship for the generations to come and to ensure that we have not entered into a situation in which we can allow any government to sell out that resource in any way.

I look forward to debating the minister’s amendments and to putting forward the many amendments that we have for redrafting this piece of legislation so that it actually does what the minister says it was supposed to do.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions pertaining to the speech by the member for Algoma?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have some comments but I was going to give the other people an opportunity, if they would. I have very brief comments.

I find it sort of odd that when you lay the truth on the table and make a commitment, the people over there do not really recognize it; but that should not surprise me because that is precisely what has been done throughout the moving of this bill. I accepted the fact that the leader of the official opposition had some concerns about exporting water outside of Canada. I have made a commitment to this Legislature and to the people in it that I am prepared to move such an amendment that will not allow water to be moved out of this jurisdiction into the US.

I am quite disturbed that anyone who would set himself up as a New Democrat and who would think in terms of what is good for Canadians would make the comment that he would in any way step in between Ontario and Manitoba when there is a need there for water from Shoal Lake. I do not believe the member understood what he was saying.

I say, with the greatest of respect, the people of Ontario refer to themselves as Canadians. We have had the will to bring together for the national good a new understanding between the provinces, whether it be Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec or anywhere else. The member would put wedges in between, as he is proposing to do here, when we say we are leaving the option open where there is a part of Canada that needs help from Ontario.

The Premier has said many times, “We are ready to do what is in the best interest of this great nation of ours in dealing with our sister provinces.” If the member is not prepared to do that, we are.

The Acting Speaker: Are them any other comments on the speech by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman)? The member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. Ballinger: Watch your blood pressure.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: My blood pressure’s fine. Yesterday your face was as red as your poppy. I thought your head was going to explode.

The Acting Speaker: Through the chair, please.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I want to commend the member for Algoma on his comments. I was particularly interested in the comments that he made about why this government and why this minister would have brought in this legislation in its original form, allowing the sale and exportation of our water. That is exactly what the original bill did.

I found it interesting that the member for Algoma pointed out very clearly that the only way we got these amendments that have been brought forward was that the minister and the Liberal government were caught. They were caught by this party. The truth of the legislation came out when questions were asked in the House and it was pointed out to the minister last week that what the bill did was to provide for the exportation of water.

1640

Then there was a scrum outside the Legislature and the Minister of Natural Resources said to the members of the press that this bill was nothing to do with free trade; this bill was not put in place to facilitate the sale of water to the United States; this bill had something to do with the exportation of water to other provinces. Yet in the spring, when this bill was introduced, all of the press releases and promotion of this bill, Bill 147 and the energy bill were that the Liberal government of Ontario was fighting free trade.

The reality is that this bill, along with the others, is exactly what the Liberal government has done all along. They talk a good line; they oppose free trade when they are in elections, but when it comes to governing they govern exactly like Conservatives. My friend the member for Algoma quoted the section of Mr. McMillan’s bill, the federal bill, which is identical to the bill this minister presented.

Conservatives and Liberals are exactly the same on free trade, and this debate proves it.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Wildman: I thank the members for their comments. I can only say to the Minister of Natural Resources, “The truth will set you free.” When the truth is set on the table, as he has said he has done, it is good for the soul. If the minister feels we are not being fair in not trusting him when he puts the truth before us, perhaps it is because it would be better for us if he would do it more often.

The question the minister has posed about Shoal Lake, that somehow I am trying to stand between the transfer of water from Shoal Lake to Winnipeg, is just silly.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I didn’t say that; the member did.

Mr. Wildman: What I am disappointed he did not refer to in his response is that we should be ensuring there is the proper consultation with the Indian people who are dependent on that water resource, and we should also have proper environmental assessment whenever there is a transfer of water. That is what I said, and the minister knows that is what I said, and he did not respond to it. He does not respond to it at all in his legislation.

The fact is, when the minister introduced this piece of legislation he said it was designed to close the door -- those were his words -- on the export of water to the United States. We know that, as drafted, that legislation did not do that. Instead, it set up a tollgate. It set up a way for the government to gain revenue from the transfer of water to the United States. It did not deal with anything in terms of transfer of water to other provinces, which has gone on in the past.

We look forward to the amendments of the minister that will actually challenge the free trade deal and protect our water resources. I am not sure that we can do it, though, without accepting our amendment.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to participate in the debate for a short period of time this afternoon, a debate that can be best described as political posturing. It is a matter of defining water as whether it is or is not considered to be goods.

Having sat on the committee that studied the free trade deal very, very closely, having listened to many, many people who have made representations and also recognizing the fact that the federal government, in order to make sure that water is not considered to be a marketable good, brought in legislation before the election call which would effectively ensure that water is not a negotiable good between Canada and the United States, I had occasion to go and listen to an all-candidates debate last night. I came back rather stunned at some of the stories which are being perpetrated, particularly by two parties running in the federal election. Water is certainly a very important asset to our province and our country; however, some of the untruths and scare tactics being used by two of the major parties in this country are absolutely terrifying.

We have, in some instances, our senior citizens in a state of disarray simply because they have been told. with a great degree of truth-stretching by the two parties aspiring to power in this country, that our social services would be no more. In the free trade agreement, it has been unequivocally proven by Justice Hall, I believe, the man who initiated the Ontario health insurance plan for instance, and many others, that the two opposition parties at the federal level are simply and purely using scare tactics on our senior citizens. The same can be said about those who tell us that marketing boards will be no longer.

We have to remember that the free trade agreement is a bilateral agreement between the two major partners who have signed the deal. Canada exports close to 80 per cent of its export goods to the United States. Ontario is beyond 85 per cent. It is only natural. When the standing committee on finance and economic affairs of this Legislature visited Europe, Brussels and Geneva, we were told in no uncertain terms that what Canada was doing with the United States, its major trading partner, was a natural.

We are satisfied and the federal government has ensued that water will not be considered a marketable and tradable good. That is now enshrined in legislation at the federal level. Ontario comes up with political posturing, with a bill which, if you take it item by item, really does not do what it is intended to do. The amendments may to some degree satisfy what the minister’s political posture is. However, as it now stands, it leaves a great deal to be desired. Concerns, as far as we are concerned, have been adequately addressed by the federal government’s amendment to Bill C-130 which states, for greater certainty, “Nothing in this act or agreement except article 401 of the agreement applies to water.” Article 401 deals with the elimination of tariffs on traded bottled water.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It died on the order paper. There is no Bill C-130.

Mr. Villeneuve: It died on the order paper for a simple reason. The Senate of Canada, which happens to be controlled by a political party which is not in power, saw fit to interfere with the normal process of legislation, with the normal process of democracy.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: A damn good thing.

Mr. Villeneuve: The minister says he agrees with interference in democracy. I find that most difficult to understand.

In the free trade agreement, as I mentioned before, water is not a marketable good. I go back to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The free trade agreement is very compatible to the GATT. In the FTA, for instance, we have our marketing boards named as protected. We have historical import limits.

1650

If article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is challenged and defeated, we, the people who have supply-managed commodities, will be facing the very same situation as, for instance, the grape growers of Ontario who, faced with a GATT decision, have been told they have seven years to discontinue the discriminatory pricing of imported wines. If the FTA does not go through, we will have an identical situation facing the marketing boards should article XI of the GATT be challenged successfully. No one seems to bring that up.

To make absolutely sure that water is not considered a marketable good, there has been legislation at the federal level, similar to the bill we are debating today, and that legislation will be enacted as soon as a majority Progressive Conservative government is elected November 21.

I want to touch on a couple of other things. They may not refer directly to water, but indirectly water is certainly a part of them. Members will recall a certain poll that came out 10 days ago, showing that all of a sudden the Liberal Party of Canada was in the lead. Do members recall what happened to the stock market that day, what happened to the value of the dollar that day?

The dollar, in spite of being supported very heavily by the Bank of Canada, fell by the largest amount it had fallen in 10 years. The same situation occurred again this week when a poll came out. The dollar tumbled again, in spite of strong support by the Bank of Canada. I think our Ontario and Canadian public has to realize the very dire economic circumstances that would occur should, as Mr. Turner and Mr. Broadbent have said, the FTA be torn up.

We will have, under the FTA guidelines, rules and regulations, bilateral dispute mechanisms that do not have to wait for GATT decisions, which seem to take for ever and very often are controlled by the European Community, a very strong economic force to be reckoned with, presently the strongest at the GATT table.

Bill 175 is a political move, and if I were not satisfied that it was the timing would be the proof of the pudding. The timing of this bill during an election campaign would simply serve to perpetrate further some of the nontruths that are being perpetrated by the two official opposition parties fighting the federal general election.

The Americans were informed by the federal government of the amendment to Bill C-130 naming water as a nontradable commodity, and they had no objections to it. This lends considerable credibility to the position that fresh water, in the opinion of the Americans, was never a marketable, tradable good. They did not object.

The provincial government comes along and literally tries to duplicate and take a political posture, as it did leading up to the September 10, 1987, election. I cannot help but emphasize the very small warnings that have been issued to us, based on polling that showed that possibly Mr. Turner and his tear-up-the-FTA program would come to power.

The minister appears to want to see the economic demise of this country. The Bank of Canada strongly supported our dollar on two occasions in the last week, because polls were indicating that there may not be a Progressive Conservative Party in power after November 21 to implement the free trade agreement, which was negotiated by the best trade negotiator that we have in Canada, the same man who negotiated the auto pact, a deal that could very well go down the pipe should the FTA not be put into place.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: You don’t call that scare tactics you’re using? You know that’s not going to happen.

Mr. Villeneuve: The minister says I know that is not going to happen. Please allow me a minute, Mr. Speaker, to tell him that when we were in the United States -- in Washington, to be exact -- we had a presentation by the United Auto Workers of America, who said, “We do not want to see the free trade agreement come into place.” The next logical question was “Why?” I will tell members why. They told us it was because it reinforces the auto pact, which is slanted very much in favour of the Canadian auto manufacturers. That is why they did not want the free trade in place. Second, immediately upon the free trade agreement being torn up, as the minister and the leader of the federal Liberal Party have advocated, then they would give us our 12-month notice that the auto pact is to be no more. It is as simple as that.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Who said that?

Mr. Villeneuve: My friend and colleague from the New Democratic Party was there that morning and he heard it, as well as seven Liberal members who were on that committee in Washington in April.

In closing, I have difficulty with the political posturing and the timing that this minister has chosen to bring in Bill 175, a bill that need not be, a bill that may even prevent us from dealing with our provincial friends in Quebec and in Manitoba. This report by the standing committee of the Legislature -- and this is one that not only we support but we initiated and brought forth -- was to dismantle and eliminate as much as possible interprovincial barriers to trade in goods and labour. Why, then, should we be bringing in legislation such as Bill 175 that may even make it difficult to deal on an interprovincial basis with our sister provinces? As I said at the outset, this is nothing more, nothing less than political posturing by the Liberal government of the province of Ontario, in spite of their Liberal colleagues in the province of Quebec taking a totally different stance on free trade and being very satisfied that water, fresh water, is not a negotiable and marketable good.

In closing, I say to members that should the polls indicate -- and it is very possible next week -- that the Progressive Conservatives have taken the lead again, I would almost bet a couple of dollars that we will have a stronger Canadian dollar, the Canadian economy will be buoyant again, our stock markets will stop falling and people will regain confidence. I have spoken to a lot of people in the last week, and members would be surprised how many are pulling their money out of the stock market and getting into what they feel would be a safer investment.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity of participating in this debate, which I feel is totally useless because it is a bit of political posturing at best.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments on the member’s statement?

Mr. Mackenzie: I have just one question. There is some opposition to the auto pact. There has been opposition for a long time from American auto workers; that is true. They are also not in favour of the free trade arrangement, but for different reasons.

There is a very selective approach to this question that has been raised a number of times by my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve). Their chief concern about the agreement is the same concern that most working people have, that the Canadian Labour Congress has, that the Ontario Federation of Labour has and that the AFL-CIO in the United States has, and that is that it is an agreement that gives the business community the decision-making powers, removes government from many, many government initiatives and would make the companies they deal with and the corporations even more powerful than they are now. That is their concern, much more so than dealing specifically with the auto pact. I think the member should acknowledge that that also was made very clear at our Washington meetings.

1700

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We got a little bit away from the bill, talking about free trade, but I would like to respond very briefly to some of the comments the member made.

First, he talked about the Senate. The reason I say that the Senate may have saved Canada was that you could not trust the leader who said during his campaign for leadership, “I will not talk free trade now during the leadership and I will not talk free trade in the future.” He did not have a mandate from the people of Canada to decide to run with that ball to Washington. It is a good thing the Senate was there so that at least the people of Canada are going to have a chance to vote on what was an initiative taken by someone who did not have the mandate to take it.

As far as free trade is concerned, a couple of comments should be put on the record. The Americans are going there with a huge trade deficit. Anybody who is naïve enough to think that we are going to come out of this with help to us as traders has to be somewhere else on the scene, because that is not why they are coming to the table. This huge trade deficit has to be taken care of by the Americans.

The other problem I have is with the salesmen who are selling free trade. Look at Mr. Mulroney’s record. All he did down in Quebec was close down jobs. Look at Mr. Crosbie’s record. He wanted to take Newfoundland into the US and not into Confederation. Now they bring Mr. Bouchard on the scene. He was a separatist.

I do not care what they were. This is a very important issue for Canada, more so than any particular party, so their salesmen do not impress me as looking out for the best interests of Canada. Those members should know that, as the other two parties do.

Mr. Villeneuve: To my colleague from the New Democratic Party who was in Washington, at least he admits that there is a very strong possibility that if this free trade agreement is not signed, there will be terrific pressure from American unions to get rid of 100,000 or more automotive jobs here in Canada, primarily here in Ontario. That is a very real possibility. Those jobs are part of why we have a buoyant economy.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The FTA kills the auto pact.

Mr. Villeneuve: The FTA reinforces the auto pact, according to American unions. We all heard it. It is a matter of interpretation; but there were people there from both the Liberal Party and the NDP who heard it and who squirmed when they heard it.

When the Prime Minister of Canada initially said he did not think free trade was possibly such a good deal, he had to look at a situation that we did not have: the omnibus bill on the horizon that we now have. The free trade agreement was initiated by one Liberal government back in 1982 and was proceeding on a sector-by-sector basis, which would not have been compatible with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

When the minister gets up and says the salesmen of this free trade agreement are not to be trusted, he is talking about eight out of 10 provincial premiers. I think that is a terrible thing to say to our provincial premiers -- every one except those in Ontario and Prince Edward Island. That is what the minister said. He has accused them of being slippery salesmen.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity of participating.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Oh, I didn’t say that at all. I said your leader down there in Ottawa doesn’t know what he’s doing.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: They are slippery.

Mr. Villeneuve: If there was an NDPer, there might not be; but there is none.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is a privilege to participate in this debate, because I do think, as I said on the nonconfidence motion we had on the free trade debate the other day, we are dealing with the most important issue that faces our country.

Water has been sort of the sleeper in the whole debate we have had over free trade and the agreement that it is suggested we sign with the United States. I think a lot more attention should be given to it by Canadians, members of all legislatures and certainly members in this House.

I will deal at some length a little later with Bill 175, but I think a bit of lead-up to it is important. However, in doing the lead-up to it, I want to make it clear that the question my colleague the member for Algoma asked is a very valid one. I think I can underline some of it with comments that both the minister made and the Premier made earlier on about why we ended up with this particular bill.

I appreciate that the minister may now be ready to amend it, and we will certainly take a serious look at the amendments; but this bill, in terms of doing what the intent was, is literally not much better than garbage. The energy bill was not any better; it has been withdrawn. The medical one is not a heck of a lot better.

We have three bills in this House that do not do what they were supposed to do. You have to seriously question it. It is not a case of not having had some understanding of the depth of feeling of people in this country and in this House of the need to protect our province and our province’s rights.

We had a very good debate in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs on this particular issue. A number of people raised the issue of water, but the ones who made the most impression on most members of the committee, whether or not they agreed with them, were M. G. Clark, retired deputy head of the Canadian delegation to the GATT Tokyo round -- a very knowledgeable gentleman, as it turned out -- and D. J. Gamble, executive director of the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science, Ottawa and Calgary. As I understand it -- although I did not know; I had only heard of these two gentlemen previously -- the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science is a group of some 40 or 50 scientists in this country whose chief concern is water and what the future of it is, what is happening in terms of water and everything relating to water in this particular country of ours.

Their testimony, the exhibit they presented to us on June 16, I would recommend to members of this House as, to me, one of the more interesting and fascinating segments of the committee hearings. In the report we issued, we sort of summarized the comments made to us by Mr. Clark. As I say, he is not unknowledgeable. He was deputy head and sat though all of the Tokyo round, and he had been involved in trade talks prior to that as well, so he certainly is a knowledgeable gentleman, now retired.

The following arguments were made. This is committee summary of it from our researches and with the agreement of the various members of the committee. To quote from page 56 of the committee report:

“On the subject of water, Mr. Clark, former deputy head of the Canadian delegation to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Tokyo round, concluded that all water is included in the agreement and, furthermore, that the agreement gives the US substantially greater rights than exist under the GATT regarding the control and export of Canada’s resources. Mr. Clark’s statement to the committee outlined the two arguments behind his contention. He stated that the text of the agreement refers repeatedly to the term ‘good.’ For example, article 105 states that ‘each party shall, to the extent provided in this agreement, accord national treatment with respect to trade in goods and services.’ The text also states that a good is defined as it is understood in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. For years water has been bound in various countries’ schedules annexed to the GATT. More recently, the harmonized system, developed by the Customs Co-operation Council in Brussels, but adopted by the GATT, includes a tariff item for water. It is beyond reasonable doubt that the GATT would understand water as a good. Additionally, tariff item 22.01, which is in both the American and Canadian schedules annexed to the agreement is identical to the item in the harmonized system that includes all natural waters. It reads, ‘waters, including natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters not containing added sugar or other sweetened matter nor flavoured; ice and snow.’ Any good covered by a tariff item annexed to the agreement is subject to the provisions of the agreement itself. Mr. Clark believes that the agreement would override the federal government’s water policy in a conflict and also federal and provincial laws and regulations.”

Whether or not he is totally right, it was certainly a powerful argument, and there was much more to it than that. That is just the section we summarized in this particular report. I think also it is useful to go to page 75 in the report the committee did for a very brief additional piece:

“The act was referred to the parliamentary committee on Bill C-130 which reported on August 10, 1988. Although the majority of the amendments were of a minor nature, several substantive amendments were made. The federal parliamentary committee attempted to address the water issue by exempting it from the terms of the bill; however, most members of this committee are of the view that this amendment was not effective, because of a loophole in the agreement itself.”

1710

Once again, whether we are totally right or not, there were serious questions in the minds of all of us on the committee, and in the minds of the witnesses before us, as to whether or not the issue had been dealt with.

It was interesting, in the course of the argument and debate on this particular issue, to get some of the comments that were made about this particular matter, and how it came about that we did not get the protection we were supposed to get on the item of water.

Before I switch to that, I want to read into the record one other very short comment. When we talk about people being maligned or pressure being put on or wild arguments being made, I recall, I believe it was Mr. Crosbie talking about Marjorie Montgomery Bowker, who asked, “What did that little old lady know?” I thought that was an insult of the top order. If we want to talk about the kinds of insults that have been thrown around, that one is one of the tops in this country.

Marjorie Bowker, who to the best of my knowledge is certainly not a New Democrat, and who served for 17 years as a family court judge in Alberta and for a good many years as a lawyer with one of the top firms in Edmonton, had the following comment in her analysis of the free trade agreement:

“As to the risk of Canada being forced to export water to the US, (water not being covered in the agreement), political premises to the contrary are not enough. Once the free trade deal comes into effect, and in the absence of legislation forbidding it, Canada will be in a poor bargaining position against US pressure to divert water, the most recent pressure being for diversion from the Great Lakes into the drought-stricken Mississippi basin.

“In all the ongoing bargaining implicit in the free trade agreement, Canada throughout will be the weaker party at the negotiating table. Our lack of success on the acid rain issue is indicative of that.”

I think that is a very telling and a very perceptive comment made by Marjorie Montgomery Bowker. I would be interested in hearing whether to some members of this Legislature the same comment applies, “What does that old lady know about this issue?” or whether they will give her credit for some hard, honest research and an opinion which she has been ready to back up on television screens in debates right across this country.

I think we have to be concerned. My colleague, in order to spare my having to cover a lot of it, dealt at some length with the GRAND Canal project, but there are two or three things that I think are worth summarizing on that once again. If I can find the comments I am specifically looking for, I would like to point out that it is one of the questions we asked in the committee of the same Mr. Clark and Mr. Gamble, whether or not behind part of this issue might be the whole matter of the GRAND Canal project and the possible future export of water from this country.

The GRAND Canal project, when I first started reading about it two or three years ago, and it scared me almost from the first time I took a look at it, has some powerful backers. It is not a wild dream that some people seem to think it is. I had a list here. What I was looking for were some of the engineering companies in this country that have drawn up studies for, and in some cases sit on the board of, the GRAND Canal project. There is Bechtel and a number of the top names in the engineering field and major engineering companies in this country of ours. Indeed, until he was forced to step down because he was our free trade negotiator, Simon Reisman was one of the directors of that. One of our major banks has, I think, something like $40 million or $50 million in this particular project.

In other words it is there: the studies, the major engineering companies, in a project that, while it has not proceeded, has very much been in the concept stage in a number of pretty powerful peoples’ minds.

It did require damming at the top of James Bay. Because of the flow of the rivers into the James Bay area itself, it would eventually have meant that the bay would be fresh water. It did require in the plans -- there were fairly extensive plans, which have been debated, on this -- some six or seven nuclear power plants across northern Ontario, because them was about a two-foot shift of water that had to be achieved, to drive that water south once they had dammed James Bay and it had become fresh water.

There was no question what the purpose of that would be and where it would be going in a number of years’ time, no question whatsoever. It would be sold to the United States of America. The number of people and the kind of people who were behind that means we have at least to keep it under consideration as to whether or not this was one of the things we were really taking a look at in this particular deal on water.

Having said that, I refer again, if I can, to the bill before us. I am not going to spend the time that my colleagues have taking it apart, because without the amendments the minister is prepared to move, it is obviously, I gather, not worth the paper it is written on. As a matter of fact, to have any use for this bill at all, if you take a look at Bill 175, you have to totally remove from section 2, take out, starting halfway through that paragraph, “without the written approval of the minister”; and take out sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and totally delete them to give that bill any real meaning.

Why do we not accept the minister’s word? Why do we not move in a hurry on it? Being very blunt with the minister, it is a matter of trust. I know what the Tories are trying to do. I am not at all sure what the government is trying to do on this. I have a number of reasons for that. I want to go back to June 29, 1988, when the minister brought his bill into the House, and just read a couple of the comments he made:

“Today I would like to bring a bill before the House which will assert Ontario’s constitutional authority to control and manage its water supply. The bill is the Water Transfer Control Act. The Water Transfer Control Act will ensure that there is a secure supply of water for Ontarians and Canadians by controlling the transfer of water out of any of the five major drainage basins in the province.”

He goes on to make a few other comments and then, towards the end of his statement, he says, and I ask members to think about this for a moment, “I am sure members of this House will agree that our government must not accept any ambiguity about the province’s ability and determination to manage our water supplies.”

He goes on, in his last sentences, to say: “I would ask members to support speedy passage of this bill. We must reassure the people of Ontario of their government’s determination to prevent the free trade agreement from creating uncertainty about Ontario’s water supply. Today, with this legislation, this government asserts its responsibility to protect our water resources.”

I ask you – “I am sure members of this House will agree that our government must not accept any ambiguity about the province’s ability;” and then we had this bill. Somebody was asleep at the switch. The minister either did totally misread it or did not know what they were preparing if it was not deliberate. He came in with a bill that does not assure us of no ambiguity whatsoever. It almost blows the mind when you take a look at his statement.

I think it is also worth going a little further that same day. The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), the leader of the Conservative Party, questioned him about it: “Why do you really have to do this? Don’t you know it’s really the position of the federal party in any event? Why are you bringing this bill in? We’ve already assured federally you cannot transfer the water.”

The Premier, in reply, said the following, and I found this almost delicious: “I am very mindful of the history on this and the strong position that Premier Davis and his representatives took. It is an interesting thing. When I assumed this office, I had a little conversation with former Premier Davis, and he said to me, ‘One thing, David, never to forget is never give away our water,’ because he was mindful of the threat, as others are as well.”

“Never give away our water” -- the advice given by Premier Davis to the Premier. That was the same day. I am giving members that to put the context them, to tell them why we have some serious reservations about what this government was doing, given that kind of position at that time and the kind of bill we got and what we know about the other two bills that are supposed to deal with the same kind of affirmation on Ontario, opposition to the free trade bill.

I would think as well -- if I can find it, it is worth taking a look at something else. We have made it clear that what this bill does in effect, as it stands now without the amendments, is it allows some regulation; it really allows the minister, if he wants, to sell the water.

1720

The feds brought in a bill that was supposed to handle this. I think it was C-156 in the House of Commons. We ought to take a look at it and take a look at some of the sections.

“4. No person shall export any water, either directly or by so diverting water, for the purpose of exporting water, as to increase the flow of water at the international boundary, where

“(a) the daily mean discharge of the water exported exceeds one cubic metre per second; or

“(b) the quantity of the water exported during a calendar year exceeds 20,000 cubic decametres.”

It goes on with two or three more sections like this, which is really regulating; you can export so much or so much. It goes on to say also that if the minister wants to give permission to export, there are certain forms and things that have to be filled out.

If you take a look at it, you will find that the bill we got from this minister and the bill that the feds brought in read almost the same. They are both regulating water. They are not denying the export of it whatsoever. They are both regulating it and setting up conditions. You have to wonder then, what is the difference between the two of them? What is the bottom line? What is the real position on this particular issue?

I went through some documentation we had and I came to another bill, the private member’s bill moved in the federal House by one of my federal colleagues, Nelson Riis, and it was on the water diversion as well. Let me get down to the operative section of the bill, section 9 -- I will not read them all; I know my colleague has dealt with these to some extent: “No person shall export water from Canada by interbasin transfers.”

I ask members to compare the federal bill, which was supposed to be the answer, according to some of my Tory colleagues, and obviously was not. Their people were not sure whether it was good enough or not. Most of them thought it was not quite good enough. Compare the minister’s first bill, which is no different from the federal Conservative bill, with the bill that was moved by the New Democrats in the federal House. There is a world of difference. We say that at least shows the commitment to this.

The Liberals may end up having a stronger commitment. I do not know what those people are going to do, although I would not have said what I did before if I did not say I am suspicious. I am a little bit cynical, I guess. Frankly, given what has happened in this House, and being honest with them, I do not trust them. I am not sure what is going to happen.

It did take some pressure and it did take a very clear outline of what is now obvious, that those bills -- all three of them, incidentally, but certainly this water bill -- did not do what they were purported to do, before the minister was prepared to bring in amendments in this House. I congratulate him on now being prepared to bring them in. We will take a look at them and see if they go far enough. But if he really is wondering why he gets the kind of reservations from this side of the House, there should be no doubt in anybody’s mind, given the kind of material that I have put before him.

I want to move back again for just a moment or two because I think it is something that we had better keep in mind, and I am going back now to the broader view in this particular scenario.

The feds got away with one fast move when they said that water was supposed to be excluded from the bill. Indeed, Mr. McMillan, and I think it was a gentleman who is a lawyer -- I forget his name now; it is in the records of the Hansards from the day that we had these people before us -- said that there was supposed to be an exclusion in the bill and it was there. Of course, when he was challenged and it was pointed out that it was not there, the federal Tories at that time, as members may remember, were very, very embarrassed.

That is why we have the bill they brought in, but also, as I say, a bill that regulates and does not deny the exports of water. It is certainly not adequate at the federal level.

I think it is worth going back for a moment to the testimony before our committee as well, when we were talking about just how important water is to us. I know it is stretching it a bit, but I will comment just briefly and I will be briefer than my colleague was on the GRAND Canal project once again, but it is because of the implications of it.

Here is a fairly influential group of Canadians -- one of the directors, as I said before, being Simon Reisman before he had to step down while he was negotiating -- being on the board of this particular company in this project. As I said, a number of the top engineering firms in this country are involved in it. They are wondering, I guess, if it will float or if it will fly or if they can sell such a scheme. The potential is enormous, if they could pull it off. The costs would be enormous too, and I am not sure it ever could really go ahead.

But just as I have difficulty with people who would propose the free trade agreement, which I think is a sellout of our country, I have difficulty with people who would put this kind of project forward. You might say: “Okay, it could be tremendous, our rivers flowing to the north, and we can change the bay into fresh water. We might put these nuclear power plants across and transfer it and we might be able to make hundreds of millions of dollars to sell this water.”

I would hope the members of this House would go back and do a little research as well, because we asked questions. I asked questions of the gentlemen we had before us, just to make sure that it was not something I had read or that I was not off base in the comments. I am going to repeat one of the first questions I asked, if I can. I was not looking for great detail. I was addressing this to Mr. Gamble, the water scientist who had appeared before our committee:

“The Grand Canal project as such is one of the major propositions. Was it a potentially viable project at all in terms of money, directors? I understand that Mr. Reisman was a director of that particular company for a while. I had also heard that there was a fair mount of money in the company, including a substantial amount of money from one of our banks. I forget which one, but are you aware of just how viable that corporation was?”

Here is the piece I was looking for earlier. I think it is worth saying. This is a direct quote back from the Hansard, from Mr. Gamble:

“A quick answer to your question: The company is private; it is very difficult to get access to that information. The only information I have is included in the article I wrote in Northern Perspectives, which Mr. Haggerty referred to. All I can say is that the company is backed by the major engineering firms in Canada. These are big multinational companies: the SNC Group, the UMA Group, Bechtel Canada Ltd. That gives us some indication of what is behind it, its potential resources. What that means in what their budgets are like or how much they are investing is something I cannot answer, and I do not know anybody else who can.”

I asked a number of other questions along the same line, and he kept giving us what information he had. He was quite knowledgeable about it. Then I asked Mr. Gamble a question about the viability of the project and what it could mean in terms of this country. I asked in the context of an article -- and this is what I am suggesting some of the members of this House do a little research on -- of what has happened in the last few months in the Soviet Union, where in terms of actually diverting water flowing into the north, to the Arctic Ocean, they are probably ahead of everybody. There are one or two fairly major rivers that have actually been diverted in the Soviet Union, and the waters have been diverted to the southern part of it.

An awful lot of money was involved in a third project in the Soviet Union, to divert another river -- I am not sure how major it was-to the south, because there is a need for water in much of the southern part of the Soviet republics. What has happened to that? In spite of a figure, a figure that appeared in the local press -- it seems to me it was about $750 million -- in spite of that amount of money already going into a project, there was a decision very decisively and very suddenly, just a matter of months ago, by the Russians to cancel that project, to walk away from the fantastic investment in it.

I asked Mr. Gamble and Mr. Clark if they were aware of this, and they were, although not much more than what I had seen in the particular articles in the newspaper. Why was the decision made to walk away from an investment that was getting awfully close to $1 billion already and when they had had a couple of successful or so-called successful diversions? We do not know. Everything is not yet open, unfortunately, and may not be for a long while in Soviet society. But we do know at least what appeared in the official releases that were issued and what came back in through the Canadian media.

What they simply stated was that the environmental problems and the potential disaster were so great that they had finally -- or suddenly or however it had happened, I do not know -- realized the danger of this project, that in spite of the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars it was cancelled like that and they were now not proceeding with any more of these diversion projects from the north to the south in the Soviet Union.

I raise that only because, given their system and probably not the kind of open debate we have, if they think it is something that is going to supply water to some of the more arid republics I suspect there is one hell of a lot of pressure to do just that in that particular country, but the facts are that somebody woke up in time and they made a major decision in time.

That may be peripheral, one might say, but I am simply pointing out that I have not heard of these same major engineering firms and companies that were looking at something like the GRAND Canal project putting any effort into taking a look at what might be the environmental results of such a diversionary scheme.

1730

One of my colleagues, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) -- or maybe it was my colleague the member for Algoma, I forget which -- tried to raise the concern that some of the Indian bands have over the transfer or the reversal possibly changing water patterns in water basins in this country of ours.

I think it is much more than just what it might do to some of the native people in the north. I suspect we might be playing Russian roulette with the entire ecological system in this country with that kind of project. That may never go ahead, but there is enough to it and there has been enough publicity on it, enough people involved in it, that it should scare the living bejesus out of most of us. It should not be allowed to happen.

It is one more reason, clearly, that we have to have a position which makes it absolutely certain we are not playing games with our water, that it is utterly forbidden in terms of any agreement we have signed with the United States and that the minister’s bill which is approved in this House, if the intent is to stop that kind of misuse of our water, is clear.

Without being any unkinder than I have been, I want the minister to know that our problem is one of faith. Our problem is looking at and wondering how he could have been so restricted or ill-informed or badly advised as to have brought in the kind of bill he has brought in, which certainly is very much the same as the federal Tory bill, which we do not think is adequate; which certainly is not as clear as the bill we have brought in, whether that would ever be something he would look at, and does not do what has to be done.

I say to him, as I say to my Tory colleagues, that I think this issue is too important. This issue of the future use of our water and who controls it may be the real sleeper in the whole free trade argument that Canadians are having today. We have to be absolutely certain that the legislation which passes this particular House is legislation that does what we want it to do. For that reason, we intend to be supportive if we think it is strong enough. If not, the minister is going to have one hell of a fight on his hands, as far as we are concerned. There is just too darn much at stake.

Mr. Villeneuve: In replying to my colleague from the New Democratic Party, I recall well when Mel Clark and Don Gamble came to our committee. I believe the date was June 16 of this year. They expressed concern that we had not heard from experts on the GATT, people who had experience in dealing with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I was intrigued and certainly had some questions.

However, since that time, the federal government has said unequivocally in the amendment to Bill C-130 and the recently introduced Bill C-156, the Canada Water Preservation Act, that federal water policy bans large-scale water exports. Our water is not for sale.

It would be impossible, I tell my friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), to exclude what was not included in the first place. The amendment to Bill C-130, the federal water policy, and Bill C-156 provide, in my opinion, adequate protection. I feel satisfied. I had some questions on that June day after Mr. Gamble and Mr. Clark made their presentation.

Bill 175, the Water Transfer Control Act, if passed, will establish for the first time in our province’s history, in direct contradiction to the policies pursued by previous administrations, a system for regulating by ministerial consent the transfer and sale of Ontario water, something unheard of before.

All of a sudden the minister wants to call himself lord and master of Ontario water and price it to whomever, whatever. I find it somewhat alarming that indeed he calls this protecting our water and is in the process of putting a price on it.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would be alarmed if I were a Tory and saw what was happening to my friends in Ottawa as well, but that is not the question.

I want to direct this to the New Democratic Party because I do not know how I can put it in any stronger terms. I appreciate where they are coming from, but I think they have to admit, in the first instance, that there was a reaction when this bill was placed, as much as they feel this was not adequate, because only then did the federal government bring its bill forward. I do not know why the member over there keeps talking about it, because they did not see fit to push it through the House; it died on the Orders and Notices paper. The member can forget talking about that bill; it is gone. Now we are talking about our bill here.

I want to direct this comment to the NDP, and I want to say it after every one of its speakers speaks. When the Leader of the Opposition got up and suggested that there was an aspect to it that he was not satisfied with, I did not go back and ask anyone whether it should happen but immediately said, “If there is any question about the bill....” In my opening statement I said, and I say again, I am introducing an amendment to the Water Transfer Control Act which states that the Minister of Natural Resources will not approve any transfer of water to a place outside Canada. That is the amendment I am going to put, and I cannot believe that the NDP would not be satisfied with that amendment. That is unequivocal and deals directly with the question that the Leader of the Opposition put and that I am pleased to put as an amendment.

Mr. Wildman: I would like to commend my colleague the member for Hamilton East on his thoughtful remarks with regard to the effects of water transfers and how they relate to the so-called free trade agreement between Mulroney and Reagan.

I say to my Conservative colleague from the united counties that the amendment put in Ottawa is designed and written in the same way as the original draft of this bill that we are debating today. It is designed to allow for transfers of waters and it sets the regulations, the way to do it, how the price will be arrived at and so on; so it is not adequate. It is not nearly as adequate as the private member’s bill put forward by Nelson Riis, the New Democrat in the House of Commons whom my colleague referred to.

In terms of why we do not trust the federal legislation that was put forward, I have indicated what is wrong with the legislation itself, but I will just say that if this is a sacred trust the way the indexing of old age pensions was for Mr. Mulroney, then we all have some reason to understand why we do not have a great deal of trust.

With regard to the minister’s comments about why we are not satisfied, I just reiterate the comments made by colleague from Hamilton East, that we are afraid and unhappy about what we consider to be the lack of sincerity on the part of the Ontario Liberal Party with regard to this whole issue.

From the beginning of the discussion on free trade, this has been a political façade for the members of the provincial Liberal Party. The fact is that the party has talked a good line. Then on those few occasions when it actually took action, it was inadequate, and this bill is an example of that.

Mr. Callahan: The reality of it is that people talk about the United States wanting our natural resources. One of the most significant natural resources is water, and as they pollute their waters they are going to require ours. I suggest to members that one day it may be as valuable as oil.

I find it interesting that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry talks about Mr. Mulroney and his efforts to try to protect the water. It was not in the agreement, so he tried to pass legislation. As the minister said, it died with the Parliament. That is the kind of trust you can put in him. It was a total watering down of the entire issue.

The members over there see what is happening in this country. People are getting behind John Turner, and John Turner is fighting the issue of his life, which I think should be the issue of the life of every Canadian. What the members over there are trying to do is get some free air time for their political parties to try to bolster the polls because they know exactly where they are going. They stand up here in this House and honestly try to say that there is something to be voted for in their parties. There is nothing to be voted for in their parties. Their parties are going down the tube. They are trying to water the whole situation down.

1740

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member for Hamilton East wish to respond?

Mr. Mackenzie: Just very briefly, because I did not want to or intend to, nor did I, I thought, get into any kind of a slanging match here today, but I made my feelings known as strongly as I could.

To my colleague in the Conservative Party, I would simply point out to him that even if I am not totally right on the bill that the Tories brought in, which then died on the order paper, there are at least as many experts, at least as many -- I would say more, but I will be kind and say 50-50 -- who do not think it does what he says it does in that particular legislation. If the issue is as important as I think it is, then that is not good enough. There is a great division on just exactly what that particular bill means.

I say to my colleague and to the minister who is shepherding this bill through that I tried to make the point as clear as I could. These issues were all out. I do not know how much talking goes on within his own party. Maybe on this issue, the free trade issue, there is some difficulty because obviously the Liberal Party has a fair number of prominent people who are in disagreement with his position or his government’s so-called position on the trade issue.

I could list them. We did it the other day. I could do it again. I could list members in this House whom I have heard in past years say they believe in free trade, prominent front-bench members in this party. All I am saying is that we know there are splits in his party on this issue. He did bring in this bill, which did not deal with the problem. He had plenty of notice, plenty of time. It was not until he really got nailed in this House on it that we saw him prepared to move. That does not mean we will not support him. We may now support what he does. We are going to take a good look at it.

All I am saying is that it sure did not give me a heck of a lot of confidence in the Liberal Party of Ontario, given what he brought in and how he was forced into making the move to agree that it needed to be toughened up. That is not good enough because the issue is just too all-pervasive and important.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Sterling: The greatest threat to our water resources, the resources of our province, is John Turner. How is John Turner going to pay for $32 billion in election promises if he does not sell off the resources of our province? How is he going to do that?

I throw that out as my opening remark because that is about the level of debate that we should engage in on this phoney bill. This is such a phoney undertaking that it degrades the Legislature that we are wasting our time this afternoon on this matter.

As a matter of fact, the Premier and his cabinet colleagues find this so important that when they were talking about the free trade deal before the election on September 10, 1987, there were six points the Premier put forward that he would not approve a free trade deal on. The first point was, “No deal without an acceptable dispute settlement mechanism.” Any mention about water? No, no mention about water. The second point was, “No deal unless we can support regional development.” Any mention of water or resources? No. “No deal if it hurts the farmers.” Any mention of water? No.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sterling: “No deal if we cannot screen foreign investment.” Has that anything to do with water? No. “No deal if it threatens our cultural identity.” Any mention of water or resources? No. “No deal if it guts the auto pact.” The auto pact, of course, has nothing to do with our water resources or our other resources.

The fact of the matter is that this government has carried on a charade against the free trade deal before the last provincial election and after the last provincial election. The fact of the matter is --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I have a feeling that it must be quarter to six on Thursday. Could I have one member at a time, please? If other members want to use question-and-answer period to make questions and comments, they are most welcome.

Mr. Sterling: What we see from this government is an attempt to bring into the Ontario Legislature matters which are being discussed on the hustings for our federal election. Therefore the government party, by bringing forward this bill at this time, is doing nothing more than denigrating the process here in the Legislature of Ontario.

We should be getting on with the business of the Legislature of Ontario, we should be getting on with the business and the problems we are facing. God knows, since this government came in they have been growing day by day. We should get on with that business and deal with real matters of substance rather than this phoney act.

Ninety per cent of the population of Ontario lives within the water basins that drain into the Great Lakes. The bill we are discussing today does not even involve the Great Lakes; it has nothing to do with the Great Lakes of Ontario. The minister knows they are under federal jurisdiction and they are under the International Joint Commission. Even the minister has said to me that this bill does not deal with the Great Lakes of Ontario or the St. Lawrence River.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is all described in here: water basins --

Mr. Sterling: If the minister would like to stand up and correct me and say this bill does deal with Lake Ontario, Lake Huron and Lake Superior, I will accede to having him intervene in this debate. Does it deal with them?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: If the member wants me to describe it, I will: “For the purposes of this act, Ontario is divided into four provincial drainage basins as follows:

“1. Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Superior and the St. Lawrence River.”

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the member for Carleton resume?

Mr. Sterling: The minister, of course, did not answer my question about whether Lake Ontario itself, Lake Erie, the St. Lawrence River, Lake Huron and Lake Superior are included. They are not included because the minister has no jurisdiction over them.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We are just going to get your guys to get off their butts and --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: What this bill says in essence is that if the United States decides to drain Lake Michigan, the only way this guy can stop them is by damming every river and every creek which flows into Lake Superior on the Canadian side, or Lake Huron, the part above the opening to Lake Michigan.

In other words, this act is a joke. Not only is it a joke, it is damning to our relations with the United States in dealing with the Great Lakes in the future. We have to deal with the fact that Lake Michigan is totally within the boundaries of the United States of America. We have no jurisdiction over that lake at all. Therefore, if they utilize water or divert water out of Lake Michigan, they can do that unilaterally.

The minister continues to joke with regard to this particular act. He set up a phoney ruse as to the fact that somehow Ontario can deal with water exiting from the Great Lakes. The fact of the matter is that this has nothing to do with the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are, in fact, the life thread of the province of Ontario, and the minister knows that in terms of hydro, in terms of the usage of water, even for communities as far inland as London and Newmarket, it is the life thread for transportation and for many other parts of what is going on.

1750

In fact, what we have here is an act which pretends to protect the water from flowing into the Great Lakes. I do not believe that we are going to discuss this act for one minute after the federal election on November 21. The other fact of the matter is that this act is entirely unnecessary for even what it espouses to do, and that is to control the water of the internal lakes, those lakes basically north and east of the Great Lakes which drain into the Great Lakes. It has long been recognized that the province already has within its powers the jurisdiction to control those particular waters.

The International Joint Commission, as we know, makes rules as to whether or not water can be diverted out of the Great Lakes. This, of course, is a joint body between the United States and Canada. I thought I would draw to the attention of the Legislature that the boundaries along the common border with the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River cover a full 1,300 miles. With that particular common boundary there can be in effect no control over the passage of water over that very long boundary, other than through the International Joint Commission. Therefore, the bill has nothing to do with the major fresh-water source of the province of Ontario. It is a joke in that regard.

The last government attempted to approach the usage of the water in the Great Lakes in a reasonable fashion and in consultation with the United States. There is very much a concern by people who are knowledgeable on this topic, and this bill certainly indicates that the government does not have much knowledge about what is going on. In fact, there is a very, very deep concern by people that, if current practices continue with regard to the removal of water from the Great Lakes, which is consumed along both sides of the border, then as earlier as the year 2035 there could be serious problems with the levels within those lakes.

Our government, when we were in power, tried, and I must say successfully, to reach agreement with the states that border on the Great Lakes. I might add that those particular states are in tune with the same kind of thinking we were espousing at that time, that there should not be diversion from those lakes. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), when he was the Minister of Natural Resources, was saying as early as 1983 and 1984 that this could be a significant issue.

We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the government in setting up these phantom issues and then coming to the rescue with a junk piece of legislation like we have before us.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Now, Norman.

Mr. Sterling: Well, there is no other kind of description that you can give to something like this.

This and other attempts by this government to set up these phantoms have been recognized by both the intellectual community and the financial community as nothing but phantom bills to fight the federal government here in the provincial Legislature.

I guess if we were reasonable and logical in this Legislature, what we should probably do, by the government’s legislative program, is adjourn the Legislature until November 22, because until that time all we will be doing here is having phoney legislation put forward by the Liberal government so it can save us from all the ills of the free trade agreement. Those phoney pieces of legislation will never be heard from again after November 21.

This bill, the embarrassment of the government as shown by the amendments put forward today by the minister, was probably put together hastily in the back rooms of some Liberal campaign office. That is the only explanation we can come to with regard to how sloppily it was put together. It was obvious to our critic, the member for Cochrane South, two minutes after the minister announced it in the Legislature that what he had ineptly done was set up a bill to sell water to the United States when he felt like it. That is how inept they were. The only conclusion we could come to here was that it was done in the campaign room of some federal Liberal candidate over beer and pizza after they had been out canvassing.

Hon. Mr. Conway: We don’t drink.

Mr. Sterling: I would hate to admit they did it when they were sober, I say to the government House leader.

The Great Lakes are extremely important to us. The --

Mr. Matrundola: He’s running out of water.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: He’s running out of gas.

Mr. Sterling: I am running out of words, but I will probably have a few more to gather over the weekend, because I am really just warming up to the topic.

I want to say that the bill can be interpreted by some of our friends to the south. In various states, different pieces of legislation of a similar vein and nature to the minister’s have been brought forward by state legislators. Fortunately, those governments have not carried them through, because they felt that by carrying them through and pretending to save their state from our stealing all of their water, they would create bad relations.

That is what we have here. We have a phantom bill, a phoney bill which does nothing but aggravate relations between the Ontario and the United States of America. What is going to happen? This can do nothing but harm future negotiations when we are talking about the use of the water in the Great Lakes basin area. If the minister had jurisdiction over the Great Lakes basin, he could perhaps talk in some intelligent way about the use of water which is used by 90 per cent of the people of Ontario. This is phoney. To point out how phoney it is, I will carry on when this debate resumes.

On motion by Mr. Sterling, the debate was adjourned.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am still trying to figure out if he is for or against this amendment. Anyway, stay tuned for next week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to tell my friend the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) and our colleagues that the business of the House for the following week is as follows.

On Monday, November 14, we will consider the estimates of the Ministry of Health in the committee of supply.

On Tuesday, November 15, and Wednesday, November 16, we will deal with second reading of Bill 66, An Act respecting Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations; Bill 139, An Act to amend the Grain Elevator Storage Act; Bill 140, An Act to revise the Farm Products Containers Act -- who says I do not listen to my friend from Haldimand, the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller)? -- Bill 78, An Act respecting the Sale of Farm Implements; Bill 83, An Act respecting the Protection of Farm Practices; and Bill 160 --

Mr. Villeneuve: Finally. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) told him to get off his seat.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Norfolk has been impressing this upon me and I am accommodating him and all the farm members.

We will also deal with Bill 160, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, and we will continue the adjourned debate of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

On Thursday, November 17, in the morning we will consider the private members’ business standing in the names of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson). In the afternoon, we will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Health in committee of supply.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

10 novembre 1988