Journal des débats 1989-févr-09 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Ms. Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It appears that the mover of the motion for ballot item 61 is not here. Should we adjourn until he arrives? Can we adjust the time or will it be taken out of the hour?

Mr. Speaker: It makes it a little difficult. I do not think we should adjourn. I know there are two items and I do not think it really would be fair to put the second item now, because there may be members who wish to participate between 11 and 12 and, therefore, they would not be here.

We could get unanimous consent to have someone else place the motion for the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan), if there are any other members who were going to speak on it. Would there be unanimous agreement to have the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham) move the motion?

Agreed to.

Mr. Bossy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have information that the member for Brampton South will be here any second.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be in order to proceed. We have unanimous agreement.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I wonder if the three parties have speakers on the second resolution, because maybe the member for Brampton South will not be here even when his turn does come.

Mr. Speaker: I understand he will be here very shortly, so I think, to keep the business in an orderly fashion, I will recognize the member for Oxford.

RETIREE VOLUNTEERS

Mr. Tatham moved, on behalf of Mr. Callahan, resolution 61:

That, in the opinion of this House, the minister responsible for senior citizens’ affairs should establish an internship program for those retired persons who wish to volunteer their acquired skills and knowledge for use in any area of government where such expertise may be needed and to accomplish such purpose a directory of such retirees and their skills should be set up and maintained through the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: I hope it is agreeable to the member if we allow him to speak for up to 10 minutes and reserve 20 minutes for the member for Brampton South at the end.

Mr. Tatham: It is a pleasure for me this morning to rise and speak in support of private member’s motion 61.

First of all, what did Methuselah do for 904 years? Here is a poem written by Barbara Purcell called Modern Grannies.

I have a little grannie, she is really very old,

but also unconventional in a most unusual mould.

She doesn’t wear her spectacles perched upon her nose,

she wears contact lenses, and varnishes her toes.

Unlike some other grannies, who are home

before it’s dark,

she is dressed up in a track suit jig-jogging

in the park.

And when I wish she’d sometimes stay, and

tuck me up in bed,

she is off to study yoga, and standing on her head.

Some grannies sit in rocking chairs and

crochet shawls, indoors,

but my grannie jumps upon a horse, and

rides across the moors.

She goes on day trips with her gang of

over-sixties club,

they racket round the countryside and end

up in a pub.

And on the homeward journey, like a flock of singing birds,

they harmonize old favourites, with verynaughty words.

I love my little grannie, I think she’s really

great,

if that’s what growing old is like, well I

simply cannot wait.

Checking with the Woodstock Senior Citizens Club, they number approximately 800 and they serve another 200 people, some of whom are shut-ins, have Alzheimer’s disease and are unable to be in regular attendance at the centre. Here are some of the events one can achieve: a ski and chili dance, outdoor breakfasts, shuffleboard, bowling, oil painting, driver refresher courses.

The purpose of the club is to extend to the senior citizens an opportunity to participate in interesting and worthwhile activities that promote physical, social and psychological wellbeing and to show fellowship and encouragement for the betterment of all. The majority of the members range in age from 64 to 74. The oldest regular attendee is 99 years old. She comes out to quilt and play euchre. Recently my wife received a call from Meals on Wheels and the organizer was Mrs. Annie Forbes. Annie Forbes will be 94 years of age next Wednesday.

Life goes on after 65. All the experiences people have gone through over the years have been sorted out and distilled. It seems to me we have a grand opportunity to tune in to all that information and use it for the benefit of our society. Talking to the administrator of Woodingford Lodge, which is our senior citizens’ home in Oxford, he says that the average age of the people admitted in this past year is 84.9. Some people are able to take early retirement before 60 years of age. What a talent bank to have available for our country.

Let me tell you about Tom Williams. We had been invited to his birthday party out at the Sweaburg United Church. We arrived at about two o’clock, but no Tom. Tom arrived 15 minutes later and apologized for being late, but said: “You know, I have had a great birthday present. The fellows came along after church, picked me up and we went flying Harvards in formation. Of course, I was just a passenger.”

Tom was celebrating his 95th birthday. Tom flew for the Royal Flying Corps in the First World War, receiving his wings at 31 years of age. He transferred from the cavalry to the air force and the maximum age for pilots at that time was 28. The transfer officer asked him, “How old are you, corporal?” “I am 28, sir.” “And how many days?”

After the war, Tom was a bush pilot up in the Red Lake district. Any of the residents who lived close to the Sweaburg district back in the 1930s could watch Tom Williams’s beacon as it swept the sky, a marker beacon for any lonely pilot flying in the area.

1010

One Sunday afternoon at the Fraser farm, on the 10th line of East Zorra, Tom was taking passengers up for a short flight and a pasture landing. I watched the proceedings as a young lad. I was quite aware of Captain Tom Williams. When the Second World War began, Tom went to work for Fleet Aircraft in Fort Erie as chief test pilot. He loved flying. After the war, he continued to fly and tested parachutes. Time moved on and at age 84, Tom said he found a new way to trim an orchard: he had a slight mishap when landing at his farm. However, after minor repairs, he kept on flying.

Driving home with him one night after he opened the Woodstock fair in August 1969 -- we called him Oxford’s astronaut -- he said, “You know, Charlie, I was around before man flew, and now he has gone to the moon.”

Ask Bill McVean of CFRB or Carl Millard of Millard Airways if they remember Tom Williams. Tom Williams, like George Burns, grew older but never old. Bruce West of the Globe and Mail said he was one of the youngest men he knew. With his love of flying, of innovating new ideas, he was an inspiration to generations of young flyers.

Tom finally sold his Fleet 21 in 1973 and then gave up solo flying at age 88. At that time, he was Canada’s oldest active pilot. He wrote letters to the editor, he wrote poetry, he took part in the annual Woodstock air show. He was guest of honour at various activities involving flying throughout Canada.

After his wife died, he lived by himself, and one snowy day when he tried to put chains on his car to get up the hill, he fell and crushed some bones, at almost 90 years of age. He went into the hospital, came out with a walker, then with a cane and then active again. A few months before his 100th birthday, Tom died.

What a volunteer. What an amount of skill, knowledge and common sense. I would put Tom on the directory. Tom’s funeral service took place at Sweaburg United Church, and one of the two ministers officiating was his friend Canon John Davies. Canon Davies had just achieved his 100th birthday.

At one of John Davies’s birthday parties, held in Old St. Paul’s Church, Canon John mentioned that in the audience he saw his old friend Tom Williams and that from time to time he gave Tom advice. Tom’s rejoinder was, “And I never take it.”

In 1897, John Davies, 12 years of age, started to work in a colliery office in England. He was going to go into engineering, but he changed his mind. He came to Canada and went into the ministry, graduating from Wycliffe College in 1913. He was posted to the Yukon, and while in Dawson City met the King of the Klondike, Joe Boyle.

In 1914, Joe Boyle recruited and outfitted a 50-man machine-gun detachment which was reputed to have cost him $200,000. John Davies worked as a padre in the army and at that time held services for Joe Boyle’s men.

John got out of the army in 1919 and proceeded to continue his ministry in the Anglican Church. It is interesting to note that in 1966, he was again asked to go back to the Yukon. He spent six weeks at the Cathedral House and visited practically all the missions.

Dr. Davies’s association with the St. John Ambulance Corps began before the First World War as rector of Old St. Paul’s in Woodstock. He worked with Alcoholics Anonymous; chaplain of Branch 55, Royal Canadian Legion; the historical society; the Elgin Regiment Veterans’ Association; the Oxford Rifles Association; honorary member of the Rotary Club.

Probably one of the most historic events Canon Davies took part in was the reburial of Colonel Joe Boyle on June 29, 1983. Remember, he met Joe Boyle some 70 years earlier; Colonel Joe Boyle, the most decorated Canadian in the First World War.

At his 100th birthday party, the bishop from London was in attendance. The bishop was 88 years of age. John leaned over to me and said, “Charlie, let the old bishop have a chance to speak.”

On November 11, 1985, Padre Canon John Davies stood as usual at the cenotaph and gave the benediction. He lived one more year and died in 1986, 101 years old; a quiet, unassuming gentleman with a good sense of humour, beloved by all. The roster of retired people would include men like Canon John Davies.

It seems to me that this resolution makes so much sense because so many people are retiring at an earlier age, and the opportunity to bring them in and take part would be of benefit to all of us. I certainly support this resolution.

By the way, what did Methuselah do for 904 years?

Mr. Speaker: I have just been considering the situation. I wonder if the House would be in agreement. Usually the leadoff speaker has 20 minutes. If we allow the member for Brampton South, who has arrived now from the heavy traffic, to have his 10-minute period and then the balance of the 10 minutes at the end, would that be agreeable? Agreed.

Mr. Callahan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank members of the House. You are quite right, Mr. Speaker, I come from captivity on Highway 410, and I hope that the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) is listening.

The resolution has been kindly introduced earlier by my colleague. My reason for putting forth this resolution was that we concern ourselves about resources throughout Ontario, throughout Canada, throughout the world. One of the most significant resources we have are those men and women who have left their formal employment as a result of being retired.

You will note in the motion I do not refer to them as senior citizens, I refer to them as retirees. The reason for that is that more and more people today are being retired at a much earlier age than 65, which seems to be the magic time for going into senior citizenship. I suppose the item concerns me even more greatly these days as I fast approach the golden years.

Let’s look at it this way: The people who have had the jobs -- and those jobs need not necessarily be professional jobs; they could be jobs as tool and die makers, mechanics, accountants, what have you -- have all earned, through their formal training plus their experience over the lifetime of their job, a tremendous amount of experience that will be wasted. It will be wasted in a sense that if no one is prepared to take advantage of that, to tap that gold mine, then in fact that information will be lost.

It is particularly significant in most fields, but I would address first the question of people who are skilled tradesmen. We all know that in Ontario and in Canada, and perhaps even in North America and throughout the world, there is a falling off of the specific trades. There are perhaps not enough skilled people.

I suggest to the members of the House part of that problem is the fact that we have become so advanced that we have left some of the more reasonable approaches of the past, where it was traditional for the persons who were more senior than the others to perhaps sit around and instruct the youth of the tribal unit and pass on the information and the knowledge and the expertise that these particular people had acquired. We have lost that.

What we do is that we have formal training for people in order to educate them in either a profession or a skill, we allow them to be employed for a certain artificial period of time and then we lose them. We in fact put them on the shelf and we say, “We don’t need you any longer.”

What I am suggesting through this program is akin to the intern program that we have here in the Legislature, which was adapted from the intern program in Ottawa. What we do is bring young people into the Legislature in order to allow them to help backbenchers, basically, but also to provide them with an understanding of how the Legislature works, how government works, so that they can go back out into the community and perhaps be better citizens and perhaps have a better understanding.

Just as an aside, it is interesting to note that I think only one intern, of all the interns who have been in either the federal or the provincial parliament, ever went into politics. That says a great deal for their common sense. It is obvious that what they saw down here clearly did not lead them to a political career.

This is not something that is new. In Florida they have what they call the Silver Threads Club, and that is a very appropriate name for such an endeavour. In essence, what this program itself does is to tap the vast resources that are available, and of course Florida is probably the haven for many people who are retired or are senior citizens. It is known as the Canadian South and a lot of our people with all this information are probably down there. Surely, if they saw this as an important feature -- it is not a new idea -- it is something we could adopt ourselves.

1020

I suggest to the members that it has also been adopted, in certain respects, within our own government. The Ministry of Community and Social Services operates the senior volunteer(s) in service program, a program which recruits and trains volunteers in isolated areas to work with seniors in such areas as friendly visiting and escorted transportation. It is already in place, in a sense.

I might add that there is an additional example, the Senior Peer Counselling Project in Hamilton Wentworth. That is a volunteer group. From September 1985 to September 1988, they served over 7,953 seniors and helped senior volunteers participate in the community.

An additional example of it is the Halton Small Business Advisory Group Inc. That is a nonprofit organization composed of a number of retired business people. These people offer seasoned advice to small business entrepreneurs. Members understand business at all levels and have assisted younger entrepreneurs in management, marketing, accounting, merchandising general business operation and retail sales. They have counselled over 200 businesses since their inception in 1984.

I suggest that what I am bringing forward here is not necessarily a new idea, but I would like to see it in such a way that it receives formal backing by the government, formal backing by this Legislature and an opportunity to list the people, should they wish to participate in this type of program, someplace where it would be accessible to the various levels of government; not just the Legislature, not just government here, but perhaps school boards, municipalities and so on.

In my travels through my own riding I visited a retirement home where there are five senior citizens who have voluntarily chosen to attend at one of the local primary schools. I am told there is a tremendous interaction between them and the people who are receiving this benefit of surrogacy, surrogacy by these seniors who perhaps have their grandchildren located in some other area of Ontario. They have the opportunity to come and be a surrogate to these young people. Equally, the young people who perhaps do not have grandparents within the area where they live have the surrogacy the other way.

There is a whole host of areas. I can envisage situations such as in our community colleges where we might bring a senior in, should the senior wish to do it, to address the students on the practical aspects of business. Much of our academia really is done on an intellectual, not a practical basis. I suggest that here is an opportunity to tap a very significant resource.

I suppose one could ask, “Is this situation going to be one where you’re going to go out and interfere with the free time of the people who have retired?” Of course not. We should be looking at the retirees who perhaps have had their little period of time where they wanted to rest and play golf or whatever else they had planned for their retirement and now wish to get back into providing and sharing with the next generation some of the expertise they gathered while they were in the field of business, the professions or the trades.

I suggest that if we offer this opportunity and if I am correct that there is a need for it and that there are retirees out there who would wish to do this, then we will have tapped a very significant resource of this province. At a time of vast expenditures of revenues and the outlay of money on the part of government, we have to look at every possible resource. We should be looking at this resource. It is not new. It is a historical fact that this is the way things were done in the past.

I urge the members of the Legislature to pass this resolution and allow us to issue that challenge to retirees. I suggest the Legislature will be doing a number of things that I have just indicated, but in addition to that it will be recognizing that the human worth of these people is still respected and still needed by our society and that simply because an artificial age was set for retirement, these people need not become forgotten flowers of the field that are going to be allowed to wilt.

I urge members to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to reserve the full 10 minutes at the end?

Mr. Callahan: Yes, I do.

Ms. Bryden: The motion does give us an opportunity to discuss ways of enabling the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) to carry out her mandate to look after the special needs of seniors -- needs for adequate income, affordable housing, geriatric health programs, including better nursing home programs, transportation access and recreational and socialization programs. Unfortunately, the resolution does not deal with any of those needs. This is why I think we should not support this motion.

In effect, what the member is proposing is a new so-called intern program, apparently modelled on the intern program at Ottawa and here for political science and other students in universities or graduates of universities. That is a very valuable program to make those students aware of how politics works and to work with a member. To call on a volunteer person with expertise to come in here and become, in effect, a person attached to a member in order to learn about the political process is an entirely wrong-way idea.

An internship is a training program for future activities. These people would not be available except perhaps a certain number of days a week. They would not necessarily be available on a long-term basis. They are not looking for civil service jobs or political candidacies. It looks to me rather like an attempt to get some more free assistance for Liberal backbenchers to carry out their case work or their contacts with the community and so on.

While I think the present intern program is very valuable, I do not favour a so-called intern program based on volunteers who say they have a few hours a week and might be interested in helping advise on a better labour act for plumbers and that sort of thing. If they do have expertise, the ministry should be seeking them out. Ministers such as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) should be seeking out those people in the community.

A lot of communities are operating very good self-help programs for seniors where they do seek out the expertise in their riding. They always keep up to date on what is available and they keep looking for people. The member should be encouraging not only his own backbenchers but all members of this Legislature to develop community-based programs for seniors that will take advantage of the expertise in that community.

If we look at the awards for senior citizens, we find that a lot of the communities are doing that now. They are making awards to people who have been giving that kind of help in implementing the mandate of the minister to make life better for senior citizens.

I remind the member that we do have an Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens that reports once a year and holds numerous meetings and consultations and which is always looking for sources of information on groups and individuals in the community who may be able to develop its programs.

I also remind the member that the minister has a staff of 40 people. About 30 of them are engaged as policy analysts or project leaders. They are presumably already researching the sort of programs that should be available for seniors that I mentioned above. If they are not contacting persons with potential expertise in the community they are not doing their job. They should be the ones who are looking for those people and using them immediately. To keep an index of ones who are available at a certain date of application and are available for X hours is really counterproductive.

1030

Also, where the minister has the power to appoint people to the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens, to various task forces and to other groups that may have been delegated a question to study, those positions should be advertised instead of just being the appointment of the minister. Then we would have people coming forward and saying, “I am interested in senior citizens’ affairs, I have the following expertise and I would be glad to sit on that council or to sit on a subcommittee of it.”

That is the way to get at that expertise. This is not the way and this could require a considerable bureaucracy to operate it, because you would have to advertise widely that you want people to come forward and volunteer. You would then have to maintain a skills bank of the people who qualify after the ministry has looked at their credentials. Then if there are any changes in the details, they would have to update the list very frequently and it would not be available when it may be needed for a particular subject. The ministry concerned with that project or study would be the one that would have to really go and look for the expertise. I am not opposed to looking and to using expertise and volunteers outside, but I think it should not be a complete substitute for the present work of the government in having more people involved in policymaking.

I think the member’s motion would have been better received if he had concentrated on persuading his caucus to implement some of the many election promises the Liberals made in 1987 regarding seniors. Let me list a few: adequate homemaking service to enable seniors to stay in their own homes, better home care services to free up hospital beds, community-based delivery of health care to keep people well rather than sending them to hospitals and nursing homes, and better regulation of nursing homes.

In fact, when the government came into the accord with the New Democratic Party, one of the clauses was to provide “Reform of services for the elderly to provide alternatives to institutional care and a reform of the present nursing home licensing and inspection system.” That was in the NDP-Liberal accord. It has not been carried out very well.

Other promises which we are still waiting action on and to which any funds that are available would be much better devoted are: the dental care program for seniors, a promise made in 1985 and 1987; the one-stop access program, which has only six pilot projects; more housing for seniors, geared to income. Transportation accessibility was also promised and yet we still have the subway system looking after only ambulatory people, not people who cannot negotiate stairs.

We also need more intergenerational services in the schools between seniors with knowledge and experience and the pupils. There are one or two pilot projects on that in the province. We need seniors in day care centres. There is going to be a new day care centre in my riding in the next year and it is going to bring seniors into the day care program to assist with the children and there will be good intergenerational feedback.

We need better assistive devices programs for seniors. Many of them are not getting what they need or, as was pointed out yesterday in the debate on health, the red tape is so much that it is more expensive to apply than to get the assistive device yourself. We need more geriatric centres, because the population of seniors in this province is going to become much greater, by about 86 per cent in the next 25 years.

We do not have most of those things going on, yet we are talking about setting up a program that could cost a considerable amount of money if the volunteers are here on a regular basis, and it could also require a lot of bureaucratic work that the ministry has no resources to carry out.

In fact, we need far more resources to seniors’ programs. I think that is the weakness of this resolution. It is not asking the government to do anything about providing more resources to the implementation of these other election promises, and that is what we really need at this time.

Mrs. Cunningham: I am in a very interesting position in speaking to this motion put forth by the member for Brampton South this morning in that we definitely agree with the principle of the motion. There is no doubt in our mind that what the member is trying to bring to the attention of this House is the fact that we have a wonderful untapped resource out there; that is, volunteers, retired persons who have worked in this province in many fields and who are more than willing to provide their services, which are much needed, on an ongoing basis in many areas. The previous speaker has spoken about how we could be using them in our hospitals, our seniors’ homes, our schools and many other parts of the workings of the province.

We do have a tremendous concern about the particular ministry that, certainly in the view of the member for Brampton South, would be responsible for this, that is the Office for Senior Citizens’ Affairs. We have concern, because over the last two years this particular ministry has consistently failed to implement promised programs and address the needed co-ordination of services for seniors. We have very real concerns about whether this is the ministry that should be responsible for the coordination of volunteers in this particular area if it is not able to deliver the programs that this province has agreed to pay for.

The strategic planning and policy development activities to put in place a new policy framework for Ontario’s seniors is part of the responsibility of that ministry, as well as the comprehensive planning and overall co-ordination of services for the elderly. The problem is, I do not think it is effectively delivering on this particular responsibility.

We have been told, as we have been talking to seniors this fall and winter, that they are frustrated as to which ministry to go to. They are often told that much of what concerns them is not within the jurisdiction of the ministry itself. They are referred to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Health and even the Office for Disabled Persons.

Not a lot has happened with regard to the co-ordination between the ministries over the last three years. The Office for Senior Citizens’ Affairs, in our opinion, has failed to live up to most of the responsibilities and promises that were put to us in its report called A New Agenda: Health and Social Service Strategies for Ontario’s Seniors. We do not think it has moved to co-ordinate and rationalize all the services for seniors with a special emphasis on the development of community-based services. We are really having a difficult time with the particular ministry, and we hope that the member will take a look at that.

Given our experience in how volunteer bureaus are operating in our communities -- the funding seems to be mainly from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) -- we are very concerned about this particular ministry and how it operates now and how we could ask it to take on even another role.

We will not argue with the principle of this resolution. It is an excellent one that would utilize those members of our society who are excited about the prospect of volunteering their wonderful skills and the services that they have provided to our wonderful community of Ontario in the past in a voluntary manner. However, we have two issues, one being a directory that must be maintained and the other issue being the training. We talk about an internship program -- and that is a training program -- for our volunteers.

1040

In discussing this ballot item, we talked to the Central Volunteer Bureau of London and we talked to a particular group that would relate, I think, to the Silver Threads Club that was mentioned previously this morning, a group called Over 55 (London) Inc. We also talked to the Volunteer Bureau of Leeds and Grenville, as well as John Roberts, the chairman of Coalition for Seniors in London, Ontario. We have tried in a very short period of time to get some input as to how the people who are providing the volunteer services now out there in our communities would feel about this particular motion.

They do have some concerns and they have a number of questions. They are certainly not prepared to support another level of bureaucracy, and I am sure that is not what the member intended. What they do feel very strongly about is that this particular service should be community-based. It should be hooked into the existing service providers out there now.

I think most communities do have some kind of a volunteer bureau. What is lacking in those volunteer bureaus is something called core funding. If we want something to happen, and if this resolution is intended to make something happen, then we have to have some kind of support from the government to make it happen, and a real commitment.

If we are going to get ourselves involved in another big bureaucracy with something being run from Toronto or a regional or area office, it will not work. I would like the member for Brampton South to speak to that concern.

We do need a partnership, we need someone to show leadership, and as the groups that are involved now tell us, we need some kind of a commitment to core funding, because someone has to organize this list, someone has to recruit the volunteers and someone has to speak to all of the different programs out there that are looking for support from volunteers. We have named a few already: in our child care programs, in our school programs at the elementary, secondary and university levels, in our hospitals and in our senior citizens’ homes, there are very many places that this wonderful resource could be used and we know we have the resources out there that are willing to volunteer their help.

We do have real problems with the leadership that could be provided by this government, since we do not think it is provided now within the Office for Senior Citizens’ Affairs. We do not think the co-ordination of services for seniors is being promised and we wonder how that ministry could possibly support and make this program that is being offered work.

We have been accused of being negative. In fact, we are going to be supporting this resolution. What we are trying to do right now is to raise our concerns. I think that is a very positive way of dealing with any resolution in this House. We are very interested in having the member present some answers to the questions we have asked.

The last point we would like to speak to is the fact that if one is going to be responsible for lists that are going to be the property of either a government agency or a ministry, I think we have some concerns with confidentiality, and we are facing those concerns out there now as we try to establish lists around people who are willing to provide services in the area of child care. That is something that the member should be aware of.

That is why I think the ownership for this program ought to be with the volunteer agencies that are out there now. All we should be doing is supporting them with some kind of a framework, some kind of a training program, a definition, and perhaps with a small group that could go out -- from within the existing resources, because they should be there now -- and provide this role of training for volunteers, this role that would certainly provide the co-ordination of the volunteer programs and some core funding for the agencies that already exist.

We would like to commend the member for bringing his resolution here today. We support it very much in principle. He has heard of our concerns. We hope that perhaps this could go to some committee where we could get some input as to how this kind of resolution could become a reality.

Mr. Wildman: In looking at this resolution, I must say I am of two minds. I was thinking, actually, because of the circumstances surrounding the beginning of the debate today, that perhaps the member might be able to use the expertise of a traffic controller in an internship program.

I said I was of two minds because obviously there is a tremendous pool of expertise available among retired persons, who could perhaps feel more productive themselves, and certainly help younger people, by participating in such a program. I tend to be sympathetic to the views of the member.

On the other hand, I do have some serious concerns, along with my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), regarding funding for a volunteer bureau in this province. We seem to be proposing an expansion of the volunteer program, when as yet we still do not have adequate ongoing funding for the various bureaus in the communities across Ontario now which are attempting -- and, I think, doing an admirable job with the resources they have -- to co-ordinate volunteerism in their own communities. So I am of mixed views on this resolution.

I can think of the large number of retired persons in my community, many of whom are already, of their own volition, carrying out programs to assist in many activities. I know of some seniors in my area who are not volunteering, but working on a contract basis with the Federal Business Development Bank, who are giving their expertise as former small business people who have some knowledge of accounting, record keeping, and the ways to get a business going, and are giving that expertise, without a great deal of remuneration, to assist younger people who are just starting out in business.

Also, a number of seniors are working in the schools, working with teachers and with students to give students perhaps a greater perspective than they might have simply from going to school every day with their own colleagues of their own age and with the young adults as teachers. This is particularly of importance today when we are in the time of the nuclear family, when very many young people hardly know their grandparents because their grandparents live many hundreds of miles away and maybe visit them only once or twice a year.

It is a very different situation from those of us who were lucky enough to grow up in a family where our grandparents lived nearby or even lived with us. Also, there are seniors in my area who are involved in community activities, not just working with young students in volunteer organizations, but are actually involved in developing recreational programs for people of all ages, even working in co-ordinating section 38 programs where we have people who are working to try to develop work skills. We have perhaps a retiree who has those skills and has been asked by the sponsoring agency to co-ordinate and develop a program that would help younger people learn the kinds of skills they require in order to enter the workforce and be productive, both for themselves and for our society.

1050

There is certainly an opportunity. If there were some co-ordinating effort made, it might make it more effective so that it was not as haphazard as it tends to be today. There might be actually some way of knowing what various skills are available, what people are available, and then make it possible to connect them with those who might be able to benefit from that expertise and those skills.

Again, I am very concerned about the lack of adequate funding for the volunteer bureau we have today. In my area, the volunteer bureau of Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma is attempting to develop a computer program of the various programs available to seniors, to serve seniors throughout the district. I think they are doing a good job in terms of trying to develop programs such as volunteer programs which usually involve other seniors driving people who maybe have difficulty getting out to shop, to see friends or go to medical appointments or whatever, programs like Meals on Wheels and Wheels to Meals, those kinds of programs, but they are having to struggle along without adequate funding.

It seems to me that if we are very serious about trying to assist our seniors to become less isolated and to feel they are needed and wanted in our communities, we have to provide the Office for Senior Citizens’ Affairs or the Ministry of Community and Social Services with the funding that would make it possible for the various volunteer programs available to actually work without moving already to expand programs.

I am not certain how I am going to vote on this -- I am interested in hearing the member’s concluding remarks -- but I will say that this government, like many governments, has tended to be very good on rhetoric. I hope that does not sound too partisan. I do believe this in this case. To be frank, I am not singling out the Liberal government in Ontario. I think this is true of the federal Conservative government and it has been certainly been true of other governments, probably including New Democratic Party government.

Whenever we identify a need, politicians are very good about talking about programs that should be developed to respond to those needs, but when it gets to the realities of a particular party gaining power and having all of the competing demands made upon that government, it seems to me that volunteerism is one of those areas, along with areas to serve seniors in general, which is given low priority and is put low on the list.

You can understand why, I suppose. Obviously, in the situation we have in Ontario today, there is a tremendous demand for moneys for health care, for instance. If the Treasury is being divided up and there is an argument between whether we provide funding for cancer treatment facilities or for surgery facilities in hospitals, they tend to be more immediate, and those demands for assistance for home care, homemaker services or volunteer services that might help seniors, and get seniors involved themselves, tend to be given short shrift.

I think perhaps it is time for us to stand back and ask, “All right, what have we identified as needs in terms of volunteerism and for retirees in Ontario?” What has the government said it wishes to do? Is it properly funding those services now, and if not, maybe that is what we should be doing rather than moving to expand on what we say we would like to do before we put up the money for it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The time remaining will permit only the windup by the member for the mover of the motion, Brampton South.

Mr. Callahan: How much time do I have for windup?

The Acting Speaker: There are 10 minutes remaining.

Mr. Callahan: This has been a rather unusual morning, to say the least. I am not sure it has ever been done this way before. I would ask perhaps for the indulgence of the members for unanimous consent that my colleague the member for Etobicoke West (Mrs. LeBourdais) might share my time with me.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, does the debate not have to end at 11 am.?

Mr. Wildman: Yes. He is going to share his time.

Ms. Bryden: There are only two minutes.

The Acting Speaker: The wall clock is not accurate; the digital clock is. The time remaining, I am told by the table, is 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent to divide the time?

Mr. Wildman: There are 10 minutes left? If Mr. Callahan wants to give up his time, that is all right.

The Acting Speaker: Fine. The member for Brampton South.

Mr. Callahan: I believe that the member for Etobicoke West would go first and I would wind up.

Mrs. LeBourdais: I am delighted this morning to rise in the House to speak in favour of the resolution of the member for Brampton South.

Certainly life for everyone in this province has been immeasurably enriched by the contributions and dedication of the older members of our society. An internship program for retired volunteers is very much in keeping with the philosophy of the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs that opportunity is ageless. That particular theme was developed so that we could understand that it is a time to explore new challenges. For many, turning 65 is an opportunity in itself, freeing up time to pursue new challenges, volunteering, travelling, attending classes and teaching -- in fact, beginning a whole new career.

In a time when many of our elderly population are beginning new careers it is noteworthy that one third of all volunteers in Ontario are seniors. Medical science and technology are allowing seniors today to live longer lives with greater wellbeing. They are able to do more, contribute more and want to be active, contributing members of our society.

Just think of some of the high-profile seniors who have become role models for us all: former Governor General Roland Michener, our present Governor General, Jeanne Sauvé, former Prime Minister Trudeau and entertainer George Burns, for whom life truly began at 90 when he began a whole new career. Just think of the interest and excitement generated by Toronto’s own Harold Ballard with his ongoing business and personal affairs. He certainly manages to generate more colour and excitement than his hockey team does. Suffice it to say, there is an enormous talent bank already out there.

I would like to mention a couple of people from my own riding of Etobicoke West. Just last week, I interviewed on my television program a married couple, Eleanor and Charles Hynds, who have an organization that they are involved with called Care-Ring Canada, where they provide a variety of services to the community, basically younger seniors helping older seniors. I also had a gentleman of 80 years of age come into my riding with some very solid, well-thought-out, well documented, well articulated solutions to the housing crisis, which I was able to pass on to the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) for consideration in that particular ministry. Certainly age is no barrier to wisdom and knowledge.

1100

Another area that has not been mentioned this morning that I think is worthy of consideration is the multicultural area. In many countries from other areas of the world, wisdom is passed on perhaps less through books and media such as radio and television, but rather through the seniors in the community. The younger members gather round and learn the wisdom, experiences and practice from the older members of their community.

Without taking too much further time, I just want to note a few other seniors who were recipients in 1988 of the Ontario Senior Achievement Award. I think by just reading a couple, it might give an indication of the degree of expertise at very senior ages. For instance, Mrs. Kate-King-Fox Assinewai, a native Indian currently completing her degree in native studies at Laurentian University -- this lady is 78 -- speaks to native children on the importance of education and maintaining their heritage.

Another, Ernest Berner, 80 years of age, organized the Ontario Seniors’ Games in his area, as well as the annual Senior Citizens Month activities for the local seniors group. Certainly, we could call on many of our seniors if the province were fortunate enough to gain the Olympic games for 1996.

Another lady, Mrs. Mildred Temple, 92 years of age, has been involved in the formation of many nonprofit organizations, including conservation of the Rouge Valley, Unionville Home Society and the construction of Union Villa Home for Senior Citizens in that area. Again, there is a strong suggestion that there are all sorts of talents. I think if we can amass them and use those talents to enrich our society, it is all to the good. For that reason, I very much support the resolution of the member for Brampton South.

Mr. Callahan: First, I want to thank all members of the House for their participation in the debate and some very helpful tips. I indicate to the member for Beaches-Woodbine that I acknowledge there are already in existence vast numbers of volunteer organizations and senior citizens’ clubs. I can assure her that Brampton South, as well as Peel region, has a great number of seniors who have organized in that way.

My concern is that there are seniors who have this expertise in the fields that I have addressed earlier who perhaps are reticent, either through just moving into the area or not being an outgoing person, about seeking out areas where they can use their talents. That is the reason for this type of encouragement and this type of invitation from government.

On the question of bureaucracy, at no time did I ever anticipate that this would create a bureaucratic nightmare. What I am trying to do, and what I think other members in speaking to it are trying to do, is a number of things: first of all, to recognize the talents of these seniors. In addition to that, it is very important to create for them a positive image.

I would say the feeling of being retired or being a senior perhaps and no longer being required in the workforce is a bit of a traumatic experience in itself. Some people could think life is over. We do not want that to happen. We want to use and employ those talents.

In addressing the concern of the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), she indicated something with regard to its being locally dealt with. I like that idea. I think that is a good idea. I would hate to think that everything would be just controlled from Toronto. I think we have seen that.

Ms. Bryden: Fund the local organizations.

Mr. Callahan: Yes. I think that would be very important.

I might add as well that I had not addressed the question of multiculturalism, and I suppose that was because of the way I arrived here, out of breath and having just come out of a traffic jam. But I appreciate the comments made by my colleague the member for Etobicoke West, because that is a very significant issue to look at.

The new Canadians who are coming to this country do in fact have this tremendous family involvement, this attitude that the older person is a central figure in their house. That goes a long way towards maintaining the solidarity of the family and also educating the young people. I think we can learn a lot from that particular example.

However, there are people as well who have talents and perhaps would be even more reticent, because of their new arrival to Canada, about seeking out opportunities to attend a school and speak with young children. I think that is very important. I think young people have a great deal of respect for seniors and, for that reason, there is a tremendous opportunity to use the talents of these people, not just the specific commercial talents or professional or task talents but also the very wisdom they have that comes with age.

For us to miss out on that would be a tremendous loss. I think we all agree in that regard and on that concept, but I guess it is the question of how you harness it and how you provide a vehicle through which it can be used.

I might add as well that the federal government did at one time have a plan similar to this in terms of sending retired executives, I think it was, overseas. It paid their expenses and used their expertise and shared it with countries that perhaps did not have that type of talent bank built up.

So I suggest to members that it is not new, but I think that with the ever-increasing numbers of seniors that we have now and have had over the past three decades and will anticipate between now and the year 2000 and beyond, it is essential that we place these talents in what one might call a senior talent bank, so that we can draw on them in the future, we can draw on the expertise and the understanding.

Many retired Canadians who would like to volunteer, as I said, are not sure where to direct their interest or talents, and we have to assist them in that regard. Agencies which require volunteers often need help in finding the right people. A senior talent bank, if you want to call it that rather than an intern program, could provide potential volunteers with opportunities to help programs and agencies find the right people to meet their needs.

In conclusion, I ask members to support this motion. Working out the details perhaps can be done by it being sent to some form of a hearing stage.

VEHICLES ON CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LANDS

Mrs. Fawcett moved resolution 62:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that conservation authorities provide the people of Ontario with water management, many other resource management programs and outdoor recreational opportunities, and also recognizing that the use of dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles is not compatible with the aforementioned functions of conservation authorities, the government of Ontario through the Minister of Natural Resources should bring forward legislation to prohibit the use of all such vehicles on conservation authority lands.

Mrs. Fawcett: It is the intent of this resolution that the government, by the banning of dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles from conservation authority lands, shall enforce the conservation authorities’ mandate. Removing these vehicles, which have a negative environmental impact, will, to my way of thinking, create a much safer environment for all users of conservation authority lands. Many people use conservation authority lands as a unique refuge from the bustle and noise of urban sprawl. I do not envision dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles as being compatible with this use.

At present there are 38 conservation authorities in Ontario. The objectives of these authorities are set out in section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act:

“20. The objects of an authority are to establish and undertake in the area over which it has jurisdiction a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals.”

Here I would like to emphasize the words “further the conservation and restoration,” for I feel that by banning dirt bikes and ATVs we will help conservation authorities meet these objectives.

For the purposes of accomplishing its objectives, the authorities are given a wide range of powers, including those in clauses 21(l) and (m) of the act which state:

“(l) to use lands that are owned or controlled by the authority for such purposes, not inconsistent with its objects, as it considers proper;

“(m) to use lands that are owned or controlled by the authority for park or other recreational purposes, and to erect, or permit to be erected, buildings, booths and facilities for such purposes and to make charges for admissions thereto and the use thereof.”

1110

I would like to point out that the use of authority lands is not to be inconsistent with its objectives, which are to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of its natural resources, and that these objectives should be kept in mind, especially when the authorities are considering recreational uses of their land.

This legislation also authorizes authorities to make regulations with respect to certain matters such as, and I quote from clause 29(1)(e), “regulating and governing vehicular and pedestrian traffic and prohibiting the use of any class of vehicle or classes of vehicles.”

Pursuant to this regulation-making power, over 90 per cent of conservation authorities in Ontario have adopted a generic regulation controlling the public use of conservation areas, including the use of all-terrain vehicles, off-road vehicles and snowmobiles. Most conservation authorities have designated trail routes for use by off-road vehicles, particularly where there are multiple users. There are some authorities who allow off-road vehicles use on tracts of land that are not subject to multiple use. However, although these regulations and controls may be considered a good first step, I definitely feel they do not go far enough.

I feel that perhaps some of the authorities have addressed the question of safety by not allowing the use of off-road vehicles on tracts of land that are subject to multiple use. However, the negative environmental impact which these vehicles have on conservation authority land in general has not been considered.

There are several Canadian reports on the impact of off-road vehicles and also a number of American studies have examined the environmental impact on various types of terrain in the United States. All these studies report serious, potentially long-lasting and, according to some researches, irreparable harm to terrain and habitat types, an opinion which I share. With the support of this resolution I feel we in Ontario must now recognize these facts and take a step forward.

At this time I would like to take some excerpts from some of these studies and comments by leading environmental groups which point out the irreparable damage and environmental impact that off-road vehicles can have.

The Canadian Nature Federation has identified eight environmental problems caused by the use of such vehicles in Canada:

increased road erosion through channelization;

damage to planted and natural tree seedlings caused by driving over the trees;

destruction of marram grass and lichen communities in sand dune systems, making them more prone to blowouts;

compaction of trails through bogs, altering the microtopography and drainage and also crushing plant life;

disruption of activities of hikers, bird-watchers and other recreationals through increased noise from these vehicles;

pollution of streams and bogs by oils, grease and gasoline from these vehicles;

increased poaching through ready access to larger areas of watersheds, woodlands and other areas, making enforcement of game laws even more difficult; and

disturbance of wildlife through harassment or inadvertent use of vehicles during critical seasons.

Areas in Nova Scotia have been affected by off-road vehicle activity where, again, they report that these machines crush the needles of evergreen plants, reducing their ability to photosynthesize.

It was also noted in the same report that their use is banned in all national parks. Officials at Parks Canada point out that the vehicles were cited for causing erosions on lake shores and riverbanks, thereby adding sediment to the water and destroying spawning beds for fish. The machines were also a concern because of noise pollution and possible harassment of wildlife.

As with all these studies, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you can appreciate how we in Ontario are subject to the same ill effects of dirt bikes and off-road vehicles in our conservation areas.

In Alberta, the government has limited motorized access on public lands. The executive director of the Alberta Wilderness Association contends that the ill effects of dirt bikes, three-wheel trikes, four-wheel drives and six-wheel ATVs are numerous.

I will point out some of the executive director’s concerns here. He says: “Noise scares animals out of their migration patterns, while spinning tires tear up grazing areas and mutilate saplings. Vehicles churning through the creek beds disturb spawning grounds for fish and muddy the clear waters. The resulting silt buildup also makes it harder for fish to breathe.”

Yet another Alberta environmentalist comments:

“Off-road vehicles are causing devastating damage to many of southern Alberta’s wilderness areas. Mini-bikes, dune buggies, motorcycles and various four-wheel-drive vehicles are intruding on fragile ecosystems.... Knobby and wide-track tires are leaving their treadmarks in places that until recently were inaccessible to vehicles. In southern Alberta, most of the countryside is sparsely forested and gently rolling, land for which ORVs, unfortunately, are particularly suited. Vegetation is very fragile in the region, and it is the root systems that literally bind the sandy clay soil. A single pass of an ORV causes irreparable damage to the vegetation (plants are crushed) and also to soil (drainage is altered and erosion accelerated) and the scars remain for years. I have seen this damage done where the tires of these vehicles have left permanent scars on the floor of the Ganaraska forest.”

In dunes along the east coast of New Brunswick, there is also a threat to birds. Here I quote the observations of naturalist David Christie, “With vehicles roaring back and forth, the impact on nesting birds is much more extensive than it once was.”

In the United States, a report by the Council on Environmental Quality summed up the impact of these vehicles:

“ORVs have damaged every kind of ecosystem found in the United States: sand dunes covered with American beach grass on Cape Cod; pine and cypress woodlands in Florida; hardwood forests in Indiana; prairie grasslands in Montana; chaparral and sagebrush hills in Arizona; conifer forest in Washington, and Arctic tundra in Alaska. In some cases, the wounds will heal naturally; in others, they will not at least for millennia.”

It would indeed be difficult to find a type of land mass not affected negatively by these vehicles. The nature of the damage caused by off-road vehicles was also examined in the Council on Environmental Quality’s report:

“First and foremost, off-road vehicles eat land. It is because off-road vehicles attack that relatively thin layer of disintegrated rock and organic material to which all earthly life clings -- soil -- that they can have such a devastating effect on natural resources.

“There seem to be two basic soil responses to ORV use. First, sandy and gravelly soils are susceptible to direct quarrying by ORVs and when stripped of vegetation, they are susceptible to rapid erosion processes. Second, more clay-rich soils are less sensitive to direct mechanical displacement by ORVs. But the rates of erosion of stripped, clay-rich soil is much higher under ORVs’ use than under natural conditions. Furthermore, ORV pounding of clay-rich soil causes strong surface seals to form, thereby reducing the infiltration of water. This in turn leads to greater rain water runoff which causes gullying lower in the drainage.

“Once massive soil erosion begins, it will stop only after ORV riding stops and the native vegetation has had a chance to re-establish itself and stabilize the soil.”

This report also lists some of the other problems associated with ORV use. A major difficulty, as the geological survey points out, is that the terrain which truly challenges the capability of these machines and which is therefore most attractive to many ORV operators is exactly that which is most highly sensitive to erosional degradation. This opening contradiction between machine capability and land sensitivity is a key issue. The more challenging the area is with hills, dales and obstacles, the better the drivers like it and subsequently use these courses again and again. Erosion is most evident in these areas.

1120

These machines also disrupt animal life. They collide with animals, especially smaller animals and reptiles. By destroying vegetation, they are also destroying animal food and shelter. In addition, off-road vehicles afford hunters and fishermen access to remote, untouched areas, thereby dramatically increasing the fish and game kills in those areas. The effects of ORV noise on animals, although imperfectly understood, is thought to be very damaging. The unnatural amounts of noise produced by ORVs place most species under stress. The noise can also aggravate a sick animal’s condition during periods of hunger or disease.

As pointed out by the many studies, reports and acclaimed environmentalists, the use of dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles has a tremendously negative environmental impact. I suggest that the use of such vehicles on conservation authority lands is definitely not consistent with their objectives.

Another point I would like to touch on very briefly is that of safety for all those people we encourage to use conservation authority lands in a recreational manner. One of the problems the Canadian Nature Federation identified in its study was that of the increased probability of accidents caused by the use of motorized vehicles in the same area that other recreational activities are being enjoyed.

The risks associated with the use of all-terrain vehicles have been the subject of study and debate for some time. However, recently the United States Department of Justice, backed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, in an unprecedented action, banned future sales of three-wheel all-terrain vehicles in the United States because of the risks.

In its complaint filed with the district court against the ATV industry, the CPSC said: “The risk of harm presented by ATVs is both imminent and unreasonable. Each time a three-wheel ATV is operated, a rider who is not aware of the unique handling characteristic of the vehicle...faces an unacceptably high risk that, at any moment and with no sign of impending danger, he or she will either be killed or suffer a injury....Defendants have falsely and deceptively promoted ATVs as safe, easy-to-operate vehicles for the entire family ....Defendants have created the illusion that ATVs can easily and safely ‘go anywhere,’ when in fact ATV operation on some types of terrain is extremely hazardous.”

In a recent report the accident prevention committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society recognized two-, three- and four-wheel off-road vehicles as hazardous to the health of Canadian children.

In my visit to a conservation authority that allowed the use of off-road vehicles, I found the use of such vehicles to be most dangerous to the well-being of other users. It would appear that if we are to allow naturalists, bird watchers and those who enjoy a peaceful walk through the woods to use conservation authority lands, these uses are definitely compatible with conservation authority objectives. Then it would also appear that if we are to allow dirt bikes and ATVs the use of conservation authority lands, these uses are definitely not compatible with conservation authorities’ objectives.

In fact, the Ontario Trails Council, when discussing compatibility in its report, determined that motorized and nonmotorized trail uses are not compatible on the same trail at the same time. Indeed, in their final report they stated there is little disagreement among trail groups when various types of trail activity are termed incompatible. Many “compatibility,” or more accurately “incompatibility,” problems stem from the use of a nonpower trail by power recreationalists.

This only accentuates the point I am trying to make. Conservation authority lands are viewed by many as a place in which we can appreciate nature; indeed, according to their objectives of conserving and restoring natural resources, this is true. However, the existence of these ground-grabbing, noise-making, destructive machines is totally incompatible with not only the objectives of the conservation authorities, but indeed with nature itself. It is my feeling that they need their own area where there is not a multiple recreational use and not where we have designated a conservation authority area.

Mr. Wildman: Is the member going to reserve the time left?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member has two minutes reserved.

Mr. Wildman: I must admit I am rather surprised at the introduction of this resolution by the member for Northumberland (Mrs. Fawcett). I understand her concern but this is a government that purports to be in favour of local autonomy. We have seen with Sunday shopping that it is prepared to force local autonomy on the municipalities when they do not want it and here we have a resolution which basically is telling the conservation authorities, which already have the responsibility and the power to do what the member is suggesting, that they should do it.

What does that do for local autonomy? Surely the conservation authorities are appointed in order to establish and preserve conservation lands in particular areas and to determine how best those conservations lands should be preserved in their own areas. The conservation authorities, as the member for Northumberland has indicated, already have this power. It sounds to me as though perhaps the member is having some problems with a particular conservation authority that may or may not be doing what she thinks it should be doing.

Certainly conservation authorities are responsible for determining what kinds of activities are compatible with the objectives of the conservation authorities and can be carried out on conservation lands. If a conservation authority determined that it was desirable to prohibit motorized off-road vehicles on conservation lands, it could do that. Also, they have the possibility of establishing nonpower trails and power trails if they want to allow for power vehicles within their conservation lands.

I think this points to a much larger problem we have. I want to make clear at the beginning that I do not think we can have a blanket policy for all conservation authorities across all Ontario in this regard. I think the conservation authorities in some parts of southern Ontario are dealing with much smaller areas, perhaps very sensitive areas. That is not necessarily the case in northern Ontario where we have conservation authorities that, in some cases, have very large conservation lands. Perhaps what is compatible with the objectives of a conservation authority in southern Ontario is not necessarily the same as what is compatible with the objectives of a conservation authority in the north.

I think, though, that it points to a major problem, and that is that we need a trails policy in this province. The previous government, during the time when the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) was the Minister of Natural Resources, discontinued assistance for trails grooming, usually snowmobile trails, that the Ministry of Natural Resources had provided in the past. The minister at that time just unilaterally decided that the Ministry of Natural Resources was no longer going to fund the maintenance of snowmobile trails which, in many cases, are used for off-road vehicles in the summertime.

When the snowmobile clubs at that time said, “How are we going to be able to fund the maintenance of these trails?” the Ministry of Natural Resources said, “You have the right, and we will give you the right, to charge a fee to users of the trail.”

1130

That is all well and good in southern Ontario, and this points out the differences between the north and the south, because in most cases the lands that these trails were established on were either conservation authority lands, or more likely, private lands with the permission of the private landowner.

In northern Ontario, in most cases, these trails are on crown land that is owned by the provincial government and for which the Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible. The fact is that a snowmobile club that establishes a trail system on crown land with the permission of the Ministry of Natural Resources, usually with a land use permit, does not have any legal right to require a user of that trail to pay a fee. Since it is crown land, that land technically is owned by all of us and all of us have the right to use it without charge.

The snowmobile clubs in northern Ontario are faced with a situation where they are responsible for grooming trails, usually through volunteer work and maintaining the trail system, and yet anybody who does not contribute to the maintenance of those trails can use the trails without making any contribution to the work. That is thanks to the previous government.

This government, when it came to power, said that it was going to establish a tourism strategy for northern Ontario, and part of that tourism strategy would be a trails policy. That tourism strategy was supposed to be published in October 1987; then it was postponed until December 1987; then until February 1988; then until May 1988; then until some time in the summer of 1988, and it is now 1989 and we still do not have that tourism strategy. It has somehow been lost in a quagmire of bureaucratic nonsense between the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

We need to have an overall strategy developed for tourism in the north, and one of the main aspects of that as far as I am concerned, will be a trails policy.

A lot has been said about the dangerous aspects of off-road vehicles. We have regulations in which, while snowmobiles are allowed to travel along the ditches, along the side of the road or to cross a road in a straight line, this is not allowed for off-road vehicles except for farmers and trappers. A lot of people who are owners of these kinds of vehicles think it is unfair that they are treated one way and snowmobilers are treated another.

I understand that in the United States there has been some serious concern about the stability of three-wheel vehicles and they have banned the manufacture and sale of those vehicles in that jurisdiction. If those studies are correct, then I would support that kind of an effort in Ontario; but I really wonder why four-wheel, off-road vehicles are treated differently than snowmobiles. I wonder why snowmobile trails that are used by these four-wheeled vehicles in the summertime cannot be established with some support from the provincial government.

Again, I reiterate that conservation authorities have the responsibility to decide how to meet their objectives for the maintenance of local conservation lands. I believe that generally, conservation authorities do an admirable job in this province; they fulfil a very important role.

I believe they have the local autonomy to make decisions that are appropriate to their area to ensure that activities within the conservation lands are compatible with their objectives. They can already prohibit certain types of activities on conservation lands. They could establish non-power trails to protect other users, who might be hiking or might be using bicycles, from accidents, because of power users on those trails.

I do not really think it is necessary for us in this House to pass this resolution, much as I sympathize with the concerns of the member for Northumberland.

Mr. Cureatz: I would like to begin by saying, as frustrating as it is, that I will only be using up five or six minutes. I hope, in the course of rotation, members will bide their time so that my critic for the Ministry of Natural Resources will be able to use the other four or five minutes remaining. We hope that the members will be most co-operative in that fashion.

In the few minutes that I have, I want to say that I will be supporting the resolution. I want to congratulate the member for Northumberland, who is my next-door neighbour to the east of my riding of Durham East, in bringing forward this resolution.

I want to say to her and to all the members assembled this morning in the assembly that this, in my mind, is a substantive, worthwhile private member’s resolution that is coming forward this morning; unlike what we saw a couple weeks ago from the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty), who brought forth a back-slapping, self-serving, self-purposeful resolution for the government. We have got a private member who is coming forward with a resolution that affects her particular area and tries to give some overall direction to Ontario.

Just for the moment, I will recap a little bit of the history, because I give credit to the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) who indicated that maybe the member for Northumberland is having some troubles with a particular conservation authority and that might be the reason for the bringing forth of this resolution.

I say to him, that indeed it might be, because I am having some problems with the same authority in my area. I do not think she is specifically centring on that authority. But I will tell members what she has encountered, I think, is an overall concern and I think she is trying to be nice to her own administration and to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) with this resolution.

I will be a little more critical of the minister. Here is the situation: At the same time she was first elected, I happened to move close to our own particular Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority jurisdiction, up to the lovely forest of the Ganaraska area, and lo and behold, suddenly we had some groups coming forward to myself saying: “There is a member of parliament moving in. Let’s go to him with various complaints.” Then I found out very quickly that there is a group of people who are using all-terrain vehicles in the forest and another group who are against the use of all-terrain vehicles.

I had no particular authority and I went to the authority itself. At a meeting which the honourable member attended, I laid forward a presentation to the authority -- I say to the parliamentary assistant who very kindly visited our area, and I’m glad he is here in attendance -- and I said to that authority at that time: “You people don’t have the wherewithal to take on the kind of expanded use of this 10,000 acres that you are planning, opening it up into the kinds of usage of all-terrain vehicles. What you should be doing is going back to the Ministry of Natural Resources, indicating to it that you want some further assistance, want some funding to co-ordinate an overall policy for the authority.”

The authority did not do that; and at that time my colleague the member for Northumberland was very polite and she stood up when she had the opportunity to say something, and said, “Well, I’m just here to listen and I think I will not particularly participate.” I thought, for a new member, what would you expect? I gave her credit for at least attending.

Lo and behold, a year and a half later here she is, and do you know what? I have seen the history now that has formulated in her involvement with this particular aspect. She has finally come along and said: “Do you know what? After evaluation and thoughtful consideration, it seems to me this is the direction that we should take.” I give her credit.

If she was cute, she would take copies of her Hansard and in her next newsletter she would quote: “PC member for Durham East complimenting Northumberland Liberal member on her resolution.” I hope she does. You never know. I might want to run federally in that area, and the free publicity would do me well.

1140

In any event, for the next minute and a half I will tell members what the problem is. The Ministry of Natural Resources, through the Burgar report or the conservation authority review, should be co-ordinating, and I hope it does, an overall policy for conservation authorities.

My colleague the member for Algoma said both diverse aspects. He said first of all that the local authorities should be told what to do and then he talked about problems with particular trails up in northern Ontario, and the province should be involved. He is trying to have it both ways. I say to him that you have to get the province involved. That is where the major aspect of the money is to give to the authorities. That is where the depth of expertise is. We have provincial parks. We have had experience in those kinds of aspects. We have to remember that conservation authorities were originally developed under that great Premier, Leslie Frost, under the aspect of conserving watershed jurisdictions.

What I think we are seeing now in southern Ontario is an expansion of the population. They want to use this watershed area and the conservation authorities are trying to adjust to the expanded population, but they do not have the depth of experience or money to make the proper adjustment. They seem to be going off on different tangents and diversities, putting together what we call some user groups out our way.

Who is regulating the user groups? If there are injuries, who is responsible for injuries on the conservation authorities? At the moment, it is not good enough for the conservation authorities, in my mind, to be regulating usage of the large acreage of property they have. There has to be an overall co-ordinated policy.

I think the honourable member’s resolution is an attempt, a first try at saying to the authorities, “Listen, you should be disbanding this kind of approach.” Then, hopefully, the government will follow through with the report that is coming forward so that an overall direction will be given to them.

I could continue on at great length; I will not. We hope members will be obliging enough to allow my critic the opportunity of having his comments said.

Mr. McGuigan: Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I just wish to correct the record. I am not the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources at the present moment. I was. That is now held by the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger).

In any event, I am pleased to take part in this debate and support the resolution of the member for Northumberland. This resolution addresses not only a local concern, but also a debate that is going on in Ontario as to the role of conservation authorities. Perhaps I have used the wrong word in saying “role.” Perhaps I should say “direction” because no one on the government side is questioning the role conservation authorities have performed in the past.

The crusade had its past, or its beginnings actually, from a report that was made on the Ganaraska forest back in the 1940s and the act was passed in 1946. Some 42 years later, we find ourselves re-examining the position and I think coming to the conclusion that conservation authorities are now a mature organization. They hold about $1 billion worth of assets in the form of dams and structures and things of that nature. During those years, to accomplish their task, they gained public acceptance by using educational skills and their ability to provide recreational opportunities for Ontario residents, and also to visitors, and they were used as a selling tool to sell the conservation authorities to the people of Ontario.

No one would offer any criticisms of their efforts, but we have reached a time, I suggest, when their limited budget -- it was flat-lined by the former government for many years -- needs to be directed in the future less towards recreation and more towards maintenance of the $1-billion investment and towards putting in more steel and concrete for the many flooding problems that still exist in Ontario.

In my former position as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, I listened on the minister’s behalf to a number of delegates who had deserving cases, but because of limited funds and their position on the ratings scale, they had to be turned down for the moment.

The bottom line, I believe, is that the conservation authorities are a mature, well-accepted part of Ontario’s political infrastructure. The need today and in the future is to turn their direction towards hard-line conservation and less towards recreation.

Having said that, I find myself supporting the honourable member with a certain number of tugs at my heartstrings, as does the member for Algoma. We recognize conservation authorities are structured as autonomous bodies, which one would hope and believe best know their local situation.

I think the honourable member is herself giving some expression to that same sentiment, because as members will note, the honourable member has prepared a resolution rather than a private member’s bill. The purpose of the resolution is to gauge the level of support from all parties that exists in the Legislature as a guide to local conservation authorities, rather than as a direction from the government. I commend the member not only for the content, but also for the vehicle she has used for her purposes.

Mr. Wildman: An off-road vehicle?

Mr. McGuigan: Actually, the member only mentions dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles.

When I had the office of parliamentary assistant to the minister, I visited the Ganaraska forest on June 6 of last year. I submitted an opinion to the minister shortly afterwards. In summing up, I said to the minister that while I commended the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority for forming a user advisory group made up of local residents and representatives from trail bike groups, in my opinion the differences between the two competing groups were too wide to effect a working compromise unless the conservation authority put it to the bikers that they must control the noise and develop a self-policing system to follow through and deliver on any commitments they might agree to. The alternative, I agreed, was a ban on the use of bikes on authority land.

The member has spoken about the effects on the physical environment of the forests and I support her evidence and her conclusions.

I want to speak about the incompatible nature of the opposing user groups. They can be divided into two broad categories, passive and active. The passive groups are the residents who live within the conservation authority lands, some in permanent homes such as the honourable member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), some who live in seasonal retreats, some who live on farms, many who visit the forest as hikers, naturalists and scientists, and some who go there to escape the stress of modern industrial society as we now know it in Ontario.

There are, I believe, very few, if any conflicts within this user group, nor do they inflict any unwanted effects on dirt bikers. The action group, those who go there as individual riders, as members of biker clubs out for a ride or for organized competition, do impinge on the abilities, and I believe on the rights, of people to enjoy their individual properties or their collective property as stakeholders in the common property of Ontario, held in the name of the Queen for their present and future use.

I have had some personal experience with the conflicts between residents and those who create noise pollution, which is unavoidable with dirt bikes. I would like to explain to those who do not own one of them or are not acquainted with them that they make a tremendous noise, based on the fact that the engines of these vehicles are much more powerful than can actually be sustained in continued use. If you drive one of those vehicles with wide-open power on the highway, in short order you will find the motor will seize up or disintegrate.

An example would be an air-cooled engine, a piston-driven engine, on an airplane. When the pilot takes off, I understand he gives almost full power and unleashes tremendous horsepower for that size of motor. That only lasts for about 30 seconds before the plane is off the ground. If you have watched the pilots or listened to them, very shortly they ease back the power to a cruising speed that the motor can sustain.

It is the same operation with a dirt bike. As the member has mentioned, it is only fun driving these in a situation where you have hills to climb, where you can crank that throttle wide open for just a few seconds. During those few seconds, the motor can put out a power of 200 horses, more power than we have in most cars. In fact, it even exceeds the power that is in some trucks. Of course, to go along with the sense of power, there are very few, if any mufflers on these vehicles so that when they crank the power open you get this intermittent sound which is a –

1150

Mr. Pouliot: It’s a way of life.

Mr. McGuigan: We are talking about the member’s resolution. We are not talking about a particular area in the north.

Anyway, the point I want to make is that it is part and parcel of the use of these vehicles that they make an ear-splitting noise. You might come back and say, “Why not put mufflers on them?” An engineer friend of mine tells me that when you put a muffler that is properly tuned on these vehicles or any vehicle -- not just a production, off-the-shelf muffler, but a properly tuned muffler -- it will actually create more power rather than less power. That is the nature of the thing.

The member also talked about these machines clawing their way through the terrain. Actually, they have the studded tire not for a matter of traction to grip the ground; that studded tire is there to kick dirt out behind it. If one takes a look at the rockets that go off from Cape Canaveral, they are propelled by the gases that come out the fire end of the machine. It is those gases that propel it. When you are going up a steep bank that can be 45 degrees or more -- these people are naturally attracted to that type of terrain -- they are propelled not by the traction power of that studded tire, but are actually propelled by that stream of dirt. I am talking about hundreds of pounds that comes rushing out the back of the machine.

We have, I believe, a rather incompatible use. If I had time, I would tell the members what I did for a thrill when I was a youngster. I had a horse and I was just a thrill-seeker and did things as reckless as --

Mr. Ballinger: You’re ageing yourself now, Jim.

Mr. McGuigan: They still have horses today.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired, I am sorry to say. The member for Hastings-Peterborough for up to four minutes.

Mr. Pollock: I am pleased to take part in this debate and put a few things on the record. Let me first say that I have the highest respect for the member for Northumberland, but I have to say that I do not fully support her resolution. I find this resolution is just a little out of place on this particular week.

For instance, it has to be one of the strangest weeks I have put in here at the Legislature when the government of the day brings forth Bill 113, which turns back the Sunday shopping issue to the municipalities, and then a government member comes forth with a resolution taking away from the local conservation authorities their actual authority to govern themselves and wanting to turn it back to a provincial ministry. I find that rather strange and a complete flip-flop in the way we do business here.

I just want to put it on the record too that the Ministry of Natural Resources owns all-terrain vehicles. Conservation authorities own all-terrain vehicles. After all, how can you ban them when these people actually own them? If somebody is breaking the law on conservation authorities, the police are able to come in and charge those people. If, for instance, they are underage drivers or if they are impaired, the police have the right to come in and charge them. In 90 per cent of the cases, I believe that is the case.

I would rather see a resolution put forward here in regard to engine torque versus road contact, meaning that the horsepower of a particular machine should relate to the inches of rubber that are in contact with the road. That, in turn, might eliminate dirt bikes because in my opinion, dirt bikes cause far more problems than all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has only 300 conservation officers and they are in no way in a position to police all the conservation authorities in regard to this particular –

Mr. Ballinger: They do not have to; they police themselves.

Mr. Pollock: The resolution asks the Ministry of Natural Resources to police conservation authorities. That is what the resolution is about. In fact, the Ministry of Natural Resources actually has all-terrain vehicles it uses to fight forest fires. These are some of the things I want to put on the record.

I might say also that I have a snowmobile. I have driven on conservation authority lands and I have driven in provincial parks. I felt I had done no more damage to the conservation authority or the provincial park than John Doe is doing out there driving on the road.

Mr. Ballinger: Is it licensed?

Mr. Pollock: Yes, it is.

I might also say that I presented a private member’s bill to this Legislature back in December 1987.

Interjection.

Mr. Pollock: I should have some more time because the NDP did not take its time.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired, though. I believe the member for Northumberland reserved approximately three minutes.

Mrs. Fawcett: I would first of all like to thank all members for their participation and insight into this deplorable situation. I am happy to see the member for Algoma is now favouring local option. That is very good. I also wish to point out that my resolution really said nothing about snowmobiles. I thank the member for Durham East for the very kind personal remarks and support.

At this time, though, I would like to quote from The Ganaraska Watershed, a report considered by many to be the bible of rehabilitation forest management. The Ganaraska report was the basic document on which the Conservation Authorities Act of 1946 was drafted.

“How can people do such things to their own country -- weaken its base, befoul its beauty, darken its future -- How can they do such things and seem never to realize what they are doing? How can they countenance and join in a continual defacement and destruction of the body of their land?”

That capably sums up the point I am trying to make here today. We must preserve these designated lands of ours for future generations. I feel we can do this by working with conservation authorities to help them further meet their objectives in areas where there is multiple recreational use, not work use. Banning dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles for recreational use in conservation areas, I believe, would do just that.

The carefree recreational ride an off-road vehicle user takes today may well prove to be a most costly experience that our future generations will have to suffer. We in the Legislature today have the power to help preserve some of our natural habitat and I ask that all members join in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker: We have now dealt with ballot item 61 and ballot item 62.

1200

RETIREE VOLUNTEERS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Callahan has moved resolution 61.

Motion agreed to.

VEHICLES ON CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LANDS

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Fawcett has moved resolution 62.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:02 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Miss Martel: In the throne speech of April 1987, the government announced its intention to open a regional office of the Ministry of Health somewhere in northern Ontario. In response to the announcement, the health and social services committee of the regional municipality of Sudbury passed the following resolution: first, that the Ministry of Health be requested to locate the regional office in Sudbury and second, that the ministry’s area planning co-ordinator for northern Ontario be located in the same office.

The region approved the resolution and on May 27, 1987, forwarded this to the former Minister of Health. In August 1987, the region was advised that the ministry was reviewing the decision regarding the location of the office.

In September, the region offered the assistance of its senior staff to the ministry to aid in this review. A response to this offer was never received. In November 1988, the region again raised the matter, this time writing directly to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to remind him of the promise made in the throne speech of 1987. Council again requested that the regional office of the Ministry of Health be located in Sudbury.

Finally, on January 16, 1989, a response was received from the Premier. He stated that careful consideration was being given to the location of this office to ensure the health care needs of northern Ontario would be met. He added that the review continued and no decision on location had yet been made. Two years after the fact, a regional office of the Ministry of Health has still not been established in northern Ontario. Is it any wonder, then, that we have little confidence in this government regarding the promises it makes?

POLICE DUTIES

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and concerns the use of police officers to transport prisoners back and forth between jails and courts in Ontario. At the present time, two police officers are required to drive prisoners from such correctional facilities as the Barrie Jail to appear in court in the city of Orillia, the town of Penetanguishene or the town of Midland. In many instances, the court appearance is a relatively short one because the case is put forward to a future date. This could occur a number of times. The police officers must then return the prisoners to the Barrie Jail to await trial.

We are paying police officers too much just to serve as a form of taxicab driver for Ontario prisoners. As far as I am concerned, our police officers are overqualified to end up providing a shuttle service for prisoners.

I urge the Solicitor General to meet with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) and devise an alternative method for transporting prisoners between our jails and courts. Perhaps they could consider using police officers who are retiring from the force but who want to continue putting in a few hours each day the courts are in session. I think this would prove to be less costly and I believe it would free up police officers who have more important things to do than providing a shuttle service for prisoners.

MEMBER FOR CORNWALL

Ms. Collins: I stand today to recognize an outstanding act of courage by one of our own. On December 23, 1988, just two days before Christmas, at approximately 1:10 in the afternoon, Shirley Ingola was on the second floor of her home when she noticed the floor warming beneath her feet. She came downstairs to find her wood stove glowing red and the ceiling and walls blazing.

Our colleague came rushing to Mrs. Ingola’s aid as she fled from her fiery home. She was in shock and wanted to return to the house. Our colleague, with no thought for his own safety, went into the blazing house, found the family dog and safely returned the pooch to its owner waiting outside.

Tom Hughes, president of the Ontario Humane Society, was visiting the area at the time of the fire and he read about this selfless act when it appeared the next day on the front page of the local paper. Mr. Hughes returned to Toronto, whereupon he brought the actions of our colleague to the attention of the executive committee of the society. He recommended that an award be given, and a motion was passed unanimously.

The award plaque to be presented this Sunday will read: “An award of bravery is presented to John Cleary for saving the life of an animal without consideration of personal safety or wellbeing.”

I commend the honourable member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary) for this act of personal bravery and I ask all members in the House to join me in congratulating him.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: John, maybe you can save the Tories now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CAMBRIDGE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING COMMITTEE

Mr. Farnan: Today, I wish to pay tribute to the Cambridge Industrial Training Committee. This is a committee of volunteers with representatives from business; from labour, employers and employees, and from education.

Together they evaluate the growth of our community and look for areas in which training will benefit employers and employees.

After identifying areas of opportunity, the committee endeavours to make programs available through Ontario’s Ministry of Skills Development and the Department of Employment and Immigration. These programs benefit employees by providing easier access to training and to employers by providing funds to help them put training plans in place.

By providing opportunities to refine skills and to learn new skills, by assisting older laid-off workers and women to gain marketable skills and by encouraging young people to consider a career in the skilled trades, the Cambridge Industrial Training Committee is playing a key role in securing the economic and industrial future of Cambridge in the area of Canada’s technology triangle.

The Cambridge Industrial Training Committee recognizes that our greatest resource and our greatest asset is a well-trained and skilled workforce. New tools, methods and technologies are available to all. However, we can compete only when we can demonstrate that we have a workforce with the right training.

On behalf of all the citizens of Cambridge, I applaud and commend the volunteers of the Cambridge Industrial Training Committee. Their contribution is essential to our future and deserves generous support from the provincial Ministry of Skills Development.

FIREFIGHTING

Mr. Pollock: During the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the minister was questioned regarding the reduction of fire-crew size from six members down to three and whether there would be an overall reduction in the total number of firefighters. While the answer from the minister and his officials at that time was that we “might be increasing our number of firefighters,” today our worst fears appear to be true.

From information that I have received, it appears that the minister is intending to reduce fire-crew personnel by 46 per cent in the Algonquin region and that the reduction may in fact be continued across many of the ministry’s districts and perhaps across the entire province.

True to the form of this government, the minister is also intending to pass some of the responsibility of fighting forest fires on to the municipalities by using members of the local fire department for auxiliary crews. I am sure that the minister realizes that fire departments in rural areas are mostly entirely volunteer fire departments. To expect these dedicated individuals, who so freely give of their time, to take on this task which belongs rightfully to the minister is absurd.

Why does the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) not live up to the commitment he gave during estimates, stop passing the buck on to municipalities and stop threatening the forest resources of our province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CITIZENSHIP

Mr. Matrundola: In view of the fact that a great number of immigrants of advanced age who have resided in Canada for many years wish to participate more fully in our society, including participating in elections; and

In view of the fact that these seniors are unable to do so because they are not Canadian citizens and many of them have great difficulty in acquiring the required level of language skills because they are unable to attend classes or may feel intimidated to be tested; and

In view of the fact that the federal government, in its 1987 discussion paper entitled Proud to be Canadian suggested amendments to the Citizenship Act which would promote citizenship among senior newcomers by lowering or removing barriers for those over 60 years of age,

I would therefore urge the government of Ontario to request that the government of Canada amend the Citizenship Act as follows:

“Any landed immigrant who resides in Canada for at least 10 years and is of at least 60 years of age may become a Canadian citizen upon summary application, by paying the required fee and attending the swearing-in ceremony. This would waive the language and studying requirements. Also, since at 60 years of age, they qualify as senior citizens they would pay only 50 per cent of the applicable fees.

“Anyone wishing to become a Canadian citizen in less than 10 years, or who is less than 60 years old, shall follow the present routine.”

This will facilitate the obtaining of Canadian citizenship for senior citizens who wish to participate more fully in our democratic process and hence make a contribution to Canada.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cambridge for 40 seconds.

1340

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Farnan: I would like to read a quote from a letter I received from a Cambridge resident.

“Dear Mike,

“Never mind that three days before the last provincial election David Peterson said in Cambridge, ‘I have a specific plan to lower insurance rates.’ He had no plan. There never was a plan. What Peterson said about auto insurance was just another promise. I wonder how many people were suckered in and voted for the Liberals thinking they were going to pay less for their auto insurance.

“I have been around for a while now and I’ve got an idea how this system works. First, they scare us by suggesting a possible 40 per cent premium increase. Then they expect us to be dancing in the street when they tell us that the increase is only 15 to 20 per cent. Maybe now they will realize that you don’t trust a Liberal.

“Happy driving,

“Ross Adshade, Cambridge.”

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRIPARTITE STABILIZATION PLANS

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It gives me great pleasure to announce that this morning, Ontario was the first province to sign new amendments to the national tripartite stabilization plans for hogs, sheep and beef cattle.

As members know, tripartite stabilization programs are funded equally by the federal government, participating provincial governments and producers. The plans provide payments to producers in times of low market prices.

The amendments I signed today represent a truly co-operative effort. The federal government, national and provincial producer associations and representatives from all provincial governments worked together for over two years to improve the plans. The amendments will go a long way to create the level playing field that red-meat producers across Canada have asked for and which we have now achieved. There will be a firm upper limit on the benefits which both levels of government can offer to red-meat producers.

I anticipate that all the provinces will be signing some or all of the agreements over the next few days. In November 1985, Ontario was the first province to sign the original agreements and initiate tripartite stabilization plans for red meats in Canada. These original agreements were the first steps in bringing greater discipline into the Canadian marketplace for red meats.

Over the years, this government has consulted fully with representatives of the red-meat producer groups and has kept them fully informed of developments as they have occurred. I am very pleased that these amended agreements have the full support of the national and provincial red-meat commodity organizations.

Under the present plans, estimated payouts for Ontario producers enrolled in the program in the fourth quarter of 1988 are: $30 million for hogs, $8 million for slaughter and feeder cattle and $39,000 for lambs.

The effectiveness of existing plans reaffirms my belief in the partnership of governments and producer groups and their ability to develop national safety-net programs.

SMALL BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: On behalf of my ministry I am pleased to announce that the 1988 report on the small business sector in the province is now available. This report, entitled The State of Small Business, provides insight into emerging trends and the most recent statistics on growth and job creation.

It was produced for the committee of parliamentary assistants for small business, which is chaired by the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney). It demonstrates the high growth potential of small business, identifies issues which limit future expansion and points the way to remedial action.

Small business is the single most important employer in Ontario and in Canada. Today, nearly a third of new businesses are headed by women and an increasing number of young people are looking at business ownership as a career. Small business flourishes in areas that require a high level of specialization and customer service and a quick response to market changes.

The report also contains sections on the integration of technology in production, government procurement, exporting, government and nongovernment sources of debt and equity financing and entrepreneurial education in Ontario’s schools. In addition, this year’s report features a small business owners’ guide which gives entrepreneurs practical information on business ownership, sales to government, financing and exporting.

This comprehensive report shows the crucial role small business plays in the economic life of the province. It also points to the issues which currently pose a challenge to future growth.

POLICE WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Recently I indicated to the House that my officials had been instructed by me to conduct a survey of police forces in Ontario to determine whether the ammunition used by the police officers was in conformity with police regulations.

My officials conducted a survey of all 121 police forces in Ontario. I wish to inform the House that all police forces confirmed that the ammunition used by their police officers conforms with police regulations on the use of ammunition. All police forces confirmed that ammunition issued to police officers for normal purposes was factory-loaded solid bullet of lead alloy of semiwad cutter configuration, as prescribed by the regulations.

As members are aware, regulations also permit the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police or the chief of police of a municipal police force to authorize for a special purpose the use of ammunition other than the type prescribed by the regulation.

The survey also confirmed that, in the case of 11 police forces, hollow-point ammunition was authorized for special purposes such as target practice and by tactical units.

I would further like to inform the House that I have forwarded the information to the Firearms Equipment Advisory Committee which is looking at the suitability of ammunition now being issued to police officers, and to the committee looking at the use of force by tactical units which is chaired by Douglas Drinkwalter, chairman of the Ontario Police Commission.

I have asked both of these committees to consider this information before making their recommendations to me.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Elston: The efficient and economic delivery of automobile insurance to the citizens of Ontario is an important social and economic priority of this government. The government is committed to moderating the cost of insurance premiums, increasing efficiencies within the insurance industry, and providing for fairer treatment for all drivers in the province.

I have been strengthened in my commitment to these goals by the many comments I have received from the public and by the many concerns I heard expressed in the recent rate hearings of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board. There is no doubt in my mind that the public is seeking substantial improvement in the delivery of automobile insurance.

The Ministry of Financial Institutions has been busy examining a range of new alternatives designed to achieve the objectives of this government. It is clear from the work of the ministry that the cost of automobile insurance is directly related to the occurrence of accidents and the amount of compensation paid out for bodily injury and economic loss. The number of claims is increasing dramatically, and the per claim cost is rising at twice the rate of inflation. The volume of traffic in Ontario continues to mount as a result of our economic and population growth. The consequence is more accidents and injury claims, and more costly settlements.

I wish to inform the House today that I am requesting the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board to hold public hearings on certain issues relating to two specific alternative systems of automobile insurance.

The first alternative is a threshold no-fault system of car insurance. Under this system, victims of accidents would receive the benefits of income replacement and medical rehabilitation, with death benefits to dependants in the case of fatalities, without the need for litigation. In addition, in cases of serious injury, often called the threshold, victims would be able to sue for compensation for pain and suffering. As claims for pain and suffering now constitute 45 per cent of all bodily injury claims, elimination of litigation in cases not involving serious injury should reduce insurance costs overall, even with no-fault compensation to injured parties.

I might note that a number of American states have implemented variations of the threshold no-fault insurance system, including New York and Michigan.

The second alternative is a choice system, giving drivers an option between forms of no-fault and fault insurance. Under this system, drivers could choose a less costly no-fault policy offering compensation for economic loss, but without the right to receive compensation for pain and suffering. Alternatively, a driver could choose a fault-based policy having existing no-fault benefits and the right to further recovery through litigation for both economic loss and pain and suffering, provided the policyholder is not at fault.

Each of these alternatives, the system based on threshold no-fault and the system based on choice between no-fault and fault, holds out considerable promise of obtaining a better balance between premium costs and benefits to injured claimants.

1350

The automobile insurance board will be asked to report the result of its inquiries to me by this summer. I wish to emphasize that the board is not being invited to make a choice or even a recommendation between the two systems. The government will have the responsibility of determining whether or not to go ahead with either of these two alternatives.

The questions that the government will be asking of the board will involve the following: a detailed analysis of the potential savings to consumers under the two alternative systems; consideration of practical concerns arising from administration of either system, and anticipated levels of recovery of benefits by victims of automobile accidents under either system.

In addition, my colleagues and I will be announcing shortly measures designed to strengthen consumer protection, increase driver education and improve highway safety.

TORT REFORM

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to advise the House today about a number of initiatives I intend to take with respect to tort reform in Ontario.

The government has received very thoughtful and thorough comments on the subject of tort reform from both the Ontario Law Reform Commission in its report on compensation and from Mr. Justice Osborne in his report on motor vehicle accident compensation in Ontario. Both reports expressed confidence in the existing system for the compensation of those who have suffered personal injuries.

However, the tort system can be fine-tuned and therefore made better, fairer and more efficient in its treatment of those who have suffered injuries. I therefore propose to undertake reform in five specific areas: (1) the entitlement of prejudgement interest on damage awards; (2) the use of structured settlements; (3) the efficiency of the litigation process; (4) the use of advance payments by insurers, and (5) with respect to the further development of alternative dispute resolution for no-fault accident benefits.

I would like to take a moment to briefly describe the thrust of these intended reforms and comment on the reason these reforms are being undertaken.

With respect to prejudgement interest, a plaintiff who has advanced a claim for financial loss and pain and suffering is entitled to what is known as prejudgement interest on the amount awarded to compensate him or her for the loss of the use of that money pending judgement. The amendments I propose to bring forward will expand the availability of prejudgement interest in the sense that interest would run from the date the injury was suffered rather than the date the plaintiff gave notice.

This change was recommended both by the Osborne commission and the Ontario Law Reform Commission. The rate of interest would be the bank rate, which, at least in the ease of pain and suffering awards, would approximate more closely the real rate of return. The changes will inject prejudgement interest calculations with more fairness, neutrality and predictability.

Mr. B. Rae: Look up, Ian. The camera’s got a shine on your forehead. He hasn’t got his glasses on.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I could read in here what I really thought of the Leader of the Opposition and no one would ever notice.

With respect to structured settlements, the court must in some cases increase the amount of a damage award to enable a plaintiff with sufficient funds to pay income tax. A device known as a structured settlement can avoid this situation. However, in the current system, a structured settlement is only available where both the plaintiff and defendant consent. The amendments I propose to bring forward would give the court the discretion to impose a structured settlement on the parties in appropriate circumstances.

The third area of reform concerns improvements to the litigation process. I have asked the rules committee of the Supreme and district courts to consider a number of proposed amendments to the rules of civil procedure that would facilitate the courts’ ability to process claims concerning bodily injury. In addition, changes to the Evidence Act and the Courts of Justice Act will be undertaken to facilitate the use of medical expert evidence at trial and to permit the trial judge to offer guidance to juries in assessing the amount of damage awards.

Fourth, the Insurance Act currently provides insurers with the ability to make advance payments to plaintiffs in certain circumstances before a court determination of liability. Advance payments facilitate settlement and reduce the need to pay prejudgement interest on a plaintiff’s claim. I propose to bring forward amendments that would encourage an insurer to make such advance payments in proper cases.

Finally, alternative dispute resolution is in many jurisdictions a growing and integral component of the system for resolving disputes between insureds and their own insurer over accident benefit claims that should be provided quickly on a no-fault basis. I am establishing a committee of experts to inquire into the potential role and function of alternative dispute resolution in this field. The goal of the committee is to provide me with a model proposal for the arbitration and/or mediation of disputes between insureds and insurers.

The reforms I have announced today follow upon the recommendations of Mr. Justice Osborne and the Ontario Law Reform Commission. Both studies have contributed greatly to our ability to further improve the tort system for the people of the province.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other ministerial statements?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Now, Bob, it will soon be your turn to speak. He practises all the way through statements. Yak, yak, yak.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood there were no more statements. Responses. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: First of all, I want to respond to the statement that was made by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) –

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Look up, Bob, look up.

Mr. B. Rae: I am looking very directly at the Treasurer as I speak.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Who’s on your committee, Bob?

Mr. B. Rae: I don’t have a committee.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Speak up. Use the teleprompter. Keep your forehead down. Yak, yak, yak. Speak up, Bob.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I remind all members -- order. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: I can understand why the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is so sensitive this week. If he wants to take it out on me, that is okay. I do not mind. He cannot beat up on anyone else these days. He cannot take it out on private clients any more, so he has to take it out on the rest of the province. I do not mind.

RESPONSES

POLICE WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION

Mr. B. Rae: If I might comment on the statement made by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) with respect to the use of hollow-point bullets, there is a certain implausibility to the whole process which the Solicitor General has gone through. If she does a survey in which she asks the chief of police in each municipality to tell her whether to the best of his knowledge there has been a breach of the regulations, it is sort of like saying, “Has anybody here broken the law?” and the answer comes back, “No, ma’am, nobody here has broken the law.”

The whole process has an element of implausibility to it, which I am sure the Solicitor General understands, in terms of the common sense of what the problem has been out there with respect to the use of hollow-point bullets. If she is trying to find out whether there has been a specific breach of the regulations, she should not go around asking police chiefs whether that in fact has happened, because that is a statement on their part of their own liability. She has to find out by other means. So I say to the Solicitor General that this whole process has been something of a joke.

We may find out in the course of trials whether it is the case that hollow-point ammunition was authorized only for special purposes such as target practice and for tactical units or whether those are the only circumstances in which it has been used. I think the Solicitor General should be aware of that.

TORT REFORM

Mr. B. Rae: With respect to the comments made by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), I can only say that they are astonishingly conservative and astonishingly slow in terms of what he has proposed.

His own party has talked at various conventions about the need for a comprehensive sickness and accident program which would eliminate the domination of the ancient tort system over the citizens of this province. It is a system which does not compensate people fairly and leaves hundreds of thousands of people who are sick and ill out in the cold without any kind of compensation.

To simply tinker with and fine-tune a tort system, which, I am sure the Attorney General would agree, most observers feel is in desperate need not simply of minor reform but indeed of a major transformation, is an astonishing disappointment.

I might also add that even though the Attorney General has made the announcement with respect to all the things that are going to happen, we do not have the laws or bills in place which he says are going to be in place. What he is announcing is intended reforms that may or may not come one day. That is just not good enough.

1400

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Farnan: On Monday, the new Liberal auto insurance tax comes into effect. This is in direct contradiction of the promise made to the people of Ontario when the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said he had a specific plan to reduce insurance rates.

What we heard from the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Elston) today was simply an exercise in damage control. Basically, there is no reference at all to a driver-owned auto insurance plan, which is the real solution to auto insurance in this province.

The Liberals have failed the voters of Ontario. In the words of the Premier, “We have a specific plan.” There is no specific plan. The people of Ontario were simply misled by the Premier. It is a broken promise.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Cambridge accused another member of misleading. Will you withdraw?

Mr. Farnan: I will withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate your withdrawing.

Mr. Farnan: I am just sorry that the people of Ontario were told there was a specific plan.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member show some respect for the chair?

Mr. Mackenzie: It is difficult when you have a Premier like we have.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked the member to withdraw. The member withdrew. Thank you.

TRIPARTITE STABILIZATION PLANS

Mr. Villeneuve: Following the strong leadership shown by the federal Progressive Conservative government in Ottawa, Ontario saw fit to sign the amendments to the national tripartite stabilization plans for hogs, sheep and beef cattle. We thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) for having seen the light.

Over the years, this government has said that it has consulted fully with representatives of the red meat producers. I recall distinctly this time last year when the free trade agreement was being discussed. If the government was consulting, it was certainly not listening, just as happened in committee on Bill 113 and Bill 114: consulting but not listening.

Yes, we needed tripartite stabilization and we needed strong leadership at the federal level, which we now have. The government has seen fit to follow, and thank goodness for that.

However, there are some other things that need to be looked at in agriculture. A 60 per cent reduction in the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program is ridiculous when times are pretty tough out in agriculture. The government saw fit to reduce it by 60 per cent. The Ontario farm management, safety and repairs program worked very well. The government let it run out of money and did not replace it. Ontario Farm-Start, supposedly lasting for five years, did not last six months. It ran out of funds. The crop insurance program needs to be completely redone and revitalized.

We will have strong leadership at the federal level. I hope the government follows them there.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
TORT REFORM

Mr. Sterling: The announcements by the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Elston) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) are nothing but an advanced apology for the rate increase that thousands of Ontarians are going to receive next Monday. This is an attempt by this government to hide the fact of what is going to happen in practical cents and dollars to each and every car owner on Monday.

The leader of the New Democratic Party said that these proposals are conservative, and that is true in two ways. In one way, as he drew forward, they are perhaps too mild in their scope; but the second way is also true: These proposals have been put forward by the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) on a number of occasions, as far back as a year or two ago. Therefore, we now have a government dragging along behind and trying to gain some prospect in terms of offering these reforms.

I note from the reforms announced today that the government has not announced that it is actually going to do anything other than set up committees, hearings, etc. I refer to page 3 of the Attorney General’s report where he says that he asked the rules committee to look at some proposals with regard to civil procedures. He also says that he is proposing to bring forward amendments and that he is going to establish a committee to look into the potential role and function of alternative dispute resolution in this field.

In other words, we have a government which is not ready to act even yet, even though it said in the past that it had a plan. They do not even have the plan today. All they have is another method of setting up more hearings to establish what, in fact, they are going to do at some time in the future.

POLICE WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION

Mr. Harris: Briefly, in response to the statement of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), I would like to concur with the remarks made by the leader of the New Democratic Party and simply add that clearly the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), knows far more even after this so-called study that the minister has talked about or the survey she has talked about. He clearly knew far more back then when he was minister, and does even now, about what is going on with the use of ammunition in the police forces.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
TORT REFORM

Mr. Harris: I too want to congratulate the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) for his efforts that have led to both the statements that have been made today by the two ministers involved with insurance. I would point out that our party and the member for Leeds-Grenville talked about the auto repair industry as well. We see nothing coming forward in that area.

Finally, I too remind this House that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stated that he had a plan. Clearly, a year and a half later, he is wallowing around with a bunch of proposals that are still going out to study.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. The mayor of Toronto yesterday spoke about the need for greater understanding with respect to race relations in the city and complained about the actions of certain police officials and police officers with respect to the black community. The Premier has certainly spoken out with respect to the opinions of Professor Rushton.

I would like to ask the Premier about his views of one of his own appointees and colleagues and members of the Liberal Party, who was appointed by him to be the spokesman for the government of Ontario, the representative for the Liberal government on the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police. I am referring, of course, to June Rowlands.

I wonder if the Premier could comment on the views of June Rowlands as they were expressed to the Clare Lewis task force on Tuesday when she said that while the majority of the members of the black community are good citizens, “There is a sector of youth that’s out of control within that black community. There’s no question about it and they’re causing a lot of problems.”

The Toronto Star said, “When questioned if it’s any different from the white community, she said, ‘I think at this point that there is a problem within a certain sector of youth within the black community.’”

I wonder if the Premier can tell us whether June Rowlands is reflecting the views of the government with respect to a sector of the black community that is out of control.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot speak for the views of Ms. Rowlands in this matter. As the member knows, a number of people are speaking to the Lewis task force with their own views on this situation. Obviously, it is a very troublesome one, and we are looking forward to the views of Mr. Lewis as he gathers up ideas and talks to the various communities. I do not want to say that we subscribe to any particular view that is being put before the Lewis commission. Each will make his or her own views felt.

Mr. B. Rae: I am quite surprised that the Premier, who has been quite prepared to talk about how, for example, if he were in a position to do something, he would have fired Professor Rushton who has certain theories about races and about their relative superiority and inferiority, views which I am sure are repugnant to the vast majority of citizens in this province and certainly to those of us in this party, would not have something very direct to say about somebody he appointed whom he is in a very direct position to fire, if that is what he would choose to do.

Can I ask the Premier why he would not dismiss somebody who is speaking on behalf of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission and would single out a certain sector of black youth in the black community as being out of control and responsible for crime in the city of Toronto?

1410

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member opposite is right; the government appointed Ms. Rowlands to that position and we expect her and every other appointee to exercise real sensitivity in dealing with these kinds of matters.

I say to my honourable friend that I am not in a position either to justify or to not justify it, but her contribution to the community has been a good one, I think. I am hoping that as a result of the Lewis task force there will be some very serious ideas that can be presented for discussion here and throughout the entire community.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier has said we should all display sensitivity. I think the Premier would agree that at the very least, Ms. Rowlands has not done that in this case. This statement is profoundly counterproductive, unhelpful and raises a great many questions in my mind as to her appropriateness in that office. I would like to ask the Premier why he would not dismiss June Rowlands from the police commission as the representative of the people of Ontario on that commission.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have not seen behaviour that I think warrants that, at this point. Obviously, it is a situation that requires a great deal of sensitivity and she has a responsibility to the community to make sure that our police forces are sensitized to some of these realities. I am sure that when the Lewis task force comes down, his words will be taken very seriously.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. On December 15, the minister announced that the special authorization program would come to an end as of April 1 and that a special committee would be established to review all drugs with respect to the new Drug Benefit Formulary as of July 1, 1989. My staff has spoken with the officials within the drug benefit plan and they have confirmed that all special authorization prescriptions are, according to them, only valid until March 31.

I would like to give the minister one example in terms of what impact this cancellation of special authorization is going to have on patients in this province. There is a young boy whose name is Christian Gerrion. Christian was born with very small kidneys. He is at home but is being cared for at the Hospital for Sick Children. He must have liquid vitamins included with his formula and nutrition. These liquid vitamins are not included in the drug formulary and the cost of these vitamins alone is about $100 per month. He also has to take Polycose powder, which is on special authorization and costs about $25 per month.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. B. Rae: The question I have for the minister is this: When she made her announcement on December 15 that all special authorizations would end as of March 31 –

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Read the statement.

Mr. B. Rae: That is how it is being interpreted by her staff; that is what her staff is saying.

Mr. Speaker: Put your question.

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the minister, did she not realize the impact this was going to have on literally thousands of patients across the province with respect to their having to pick up drug costs of $400 and $500 per month?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The facts of the matter are that in December, I announced we were reforming the special authorization process as recommended by the Lowy inquiry. The goal is to ensure that drugs provided through the program are effective in improving health and contributing to quality of life.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is responsible for enormous confusion right now out there in the health care system. She may not be aware of it, but we have become aware of it and it is causing real problems.

I have referred to the example of this young child with kidney failure. Perhaps I could refer the minister to the example of acquired immune deficiency syndrome patients. Most AIDS patients may be prescribed acyclovir through special authorizations. It otherwise costs $1 a capsule; with patients taking as many as 12 a day, that would be a monthly cost of $400. Many AIDS patients also take Ensure, which is a caloric-rich protein nutritional supplement that comes in cans. A case of 12 cans costs $30 and patients may use up to three a day.

When the minister made her announcement of the end of all these prescriptions effective March 31, 1989, which is precisely how it is being interpreted by her own minister, by her own staff and by people out in the field, did she not realize the impact this was going to have on literally thousands of patients who are going to see their bills go up this much?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me correct the Leader of the Opposition by reading into the record exactly what I said in that statement, “I will...ask the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee to examine all drugs now available by special authorization, to assess their therapeutic effectiveness and to recommend whether they should be included in the July 1989 formulary.”

Between March 31 and July 1, the drugs will continue to be available if the DQTC recommends they should be included in the July formulary. The DQTC has from January 1 until April 1 to review the drugs presently available. It is very clear to them, I am stating here today in this House, that these assessments are being made by the experts on the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee and that no one will be deprived of effective drugs who is presently receiving them under the Ontario drug benefit plan.

This is a reform that has been proposed by the Lowy drug inquiry and which, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, he agreed was long overdue.

Mr. B. Rae: I do not think the minister knows what is going on. Let’s look at the time frame here. She is asking the drug quality committee to assess 1,600 drugs that are now being used under special authorization. She is in effect saying that all these prescriptions are going to end as of March 31 unless they advise people that their drug in fact is okay. That date is not established until the July formulary, so we have no way of knowing what is going to happen as of April 1 to those 1,600 drugs and the thousands of patients who are taking any one of those 1,600 drugs.

I can tell the minister that there are hundreds, indeed thousands of patients who are confused because their doctors do not know what is allowed and what is not allowed. They do not know who is going to pay or when they are going to pay. They do not know what is authorized and when it is not authorized.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. B. Rae: There is massive confusion out there. For at least three or four months people are going to be in limbo, paying as much as $2,000 for that period because those drugs are not included on the July 1 formulary.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me clarify this for the Leader of the Opposition. As of January 1, any new drug would have to be added on the advice of the expert Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee. Between January 1 and April 1, the drugs are being assessed by that committee. It can give me its advice by April 1 as to which drugs have been reviewed and determined should be included in the July 1 formulary. It has not completed its review and requires additional time to review them before it says whether they will be included in a formulary in the future, and which it believes are not effective and should not be included.

The special authorization program is being reformed to ensure that any of the drugs available under special authorization will result in the very best therapeutic results for the people receiving them. I ask for the member’s support in the reform of this. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify for him and for everyone else that no one will be deprived of therapeutically effective drugs as this program is being reformed.

NATIONAL SALES TAX

Mr. Harris: I have a question to the next chairman of Ontario Hydro or the next agent general –

Mr. Speaker: And your question is to which minister?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The current Treasurer?

1420

Mr. Harris: I read with interest in the clippings of the Toronto Star, January 15, reports of the Treasurer’s statement, “Ontario will likely merge its existing sales tax system with a new national federal tax.” The federal Minister of Finance is on record, and he is the only one so far on record, as unequivocally saying that any new national sales tax will be revenue neutral.

Will the Treasurer make the same commitment to the people of Ontario that if Ontario goes along, as the Treasurer has indicated he would like to do, with a new national sales tax plan, the Ontario tax portion of that will be revenue neutral for Ontario taxpayers?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: In response to the honourable gentleman who is running behind Tom Long in the leadership race of the third party, I want to say that asking about revenue for the Treasury of Ontario from the national sales tax is totally hypothetical. There has been no decision made whether we will participate as active partners in that tax.

If he really means, would there be some additional revenue if the national sales tax were imposed, as his party has announced it intends to do at the federal level, there might be a very small increase in revenue on the basis that our eight per cent sales tax would be applied on some goods where the federal sales tax of 12 per cent now is not applicable. There might be a minor increase in that respect. But if he is asking me about the application of the national sales tax through enactment in this House, that is hypothetical and no decision has been made.

Mr. Harris: I find it ironic that only the federal Progressive Conservative Party has stood up and said, “We want to reform the tax system; we like the national sales tax plan,” as did the other two parties in the House of Commons. Clearly, the Treasurer said he was supportive of that concept and thought it was a good way to go. He is on record three or four times as having said that.

We all understand that the concept is to broaden the base. If you are then going to be revenue neutral, you must reduce the rate. I find it ironic that only Michael Wilson has said, “This reform is to broaden the base, lower the rate and put more fairness in, and I will guarantee that it will be revenue neutral.” I do not know why the Treasurer cannot make that guarantee to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Harris: Since the Treasurer does not seem to be prepared to make that guarantee, I would like to ask him if he is still of the view, as he was at the Empire Club two years ago, that if he joins the national sales tax on behalf of the government of Ontario, the possibility of a lower sales tax rate for Ontario is a very real possibility and he will in fact follow through on that.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I simply say again that Ontario has made no decision in this respect. We have no details from the government of Canada. Frankly, I would expect that when Mr. Wilson meets Parliament again when it resumes later in the spring, he may be making some announcements in that regard.

One thing is sure: If the finance critic of the third party is under the impression that the national sales tax, as described by the Minister of Finance of Canada, is revenue neutral, he is wrong. All he has to do is read the statement made by the Minister of Finance himself. He said it would be revenue neutral over the whole tax spectrum of the federal jurisdiction.

Certainly, if you apply a sales tax at somewhere between eight and 10 per cent, which is what he said in his white paper, to all goods and services except groceries, pharmaceuticals and one or two other minor items, the revenue will be substantially larger than that returned by the present tax system.

I am not being unfair in any way to the Minister of Finance, because he said the neutrality will lie over the whole system. I do not think I am being unfair to the questioner when I say he obviously does not understand how the tax that has been described by his party federally would work.

Mr. Harris: Clearly, I do understand. Clearly, I said the commitment he made was that over the whole spectrum he would guarantee the new proposals would result in revenue-neutral total taxation. He made that commitment and the Treasurer refused to make it. Those clearly are the facts on those two, and I do not understand why.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Harris: By way of final supplementary, let me tell the Treasurer that every member on this side of the House was astonished to learn in his January 15 musings of his concern about the possible impact of a national sales tax on new home buyers. He said that was one of the great concerns he had and that would have to be resolved before he would agree to participate.

For the Treasurer who hiked the land transfer tax -- the last budget added $3,000 to the cost of a new house -- whose government has been accused of profiteering on the housing market and who is now proposing a lot levy that could drive up house prices by an additional $5,000 to $10,000, this new-found concern for home buyers –

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question?

Mr. Harris: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

-- represents a conversion we do not understand. Perhaps it came about on his last European junket. I ask the Treasurer, given that his record and the government’s record and their credibility is zero on that concern –

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order,

Mr. Harris: -- will he now guarantee in this House that he will rethink his ridiculous proposal for a sales –

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat.

Mr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order; the Treasurer.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am trying to discern where there is a question in that spontaneous outpouring of enthusiasm from the honourable member. I can simply reiterate the commitment that I, as Treasurer, have made, supported by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and all my colleagues, that we will continue to pay the bills of the province on a tax base that demonstrates fairness and equity for all and that is substantially supported by the right-thinking taxpayers of this jurisdiction.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. On January 16, the minister stated with regard to the Social Assistance Review Committee recommendations that opportunity planning and disincentives for the disabled and single parents going back to work are the two areas of priority that he would like to see implemented from the Transitions report.

What we really need is a blueprint with a cost-benefit analysis and we expect him to address the total report. Are we just going to get a reference to only two parts of this report or is he going to address a total overhaul of this archaic social assistance system when he makes his report?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My recollection of the honourable member’s previous question was to invite me to give her a list of my priorities, which I did. I at no time suggested in giving those priorities that we were unconcerned about all of the other elements of the report. As a matter of fact, I have said on a number of occasions that the report has a wholeness to it that has to be taken altogether, but again, if she asked me what parts of it I think we should move on most quickly because it will most impact the largest number of people, it is the ones I mentioned.

Mrs. Cunningham: I thank the minister very much for that clarification because the public attitude, I suppose because of the question I asked him, is that the government is not prepared to overhaul the social assistance system. Now he has reassured all of us that he is. Now that we know better, my question is, when will he be making this announcement?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I believe that on previous occasions I have indicated there will be some indication of the direction we will be going in in either or both of the throne speech or the budget speech.

1430

Mrs. Cunningham: It seems to me we are approaching the six months mark since the report was released. I would like to make an observation to the minister. In the 1988-89 estimates, the Social Assistance Review Board budget increased by more than 50 per cent. It went from some $2.3 million to $4 million. We all know that poor people appeal decisions this government makes for two reasons: either they are not making enough money or because of the unfairness in the system. We were advised by the Social Assistance Review Committee that those two things happened: The benefit structure was not adequate and, in fact, there is unfairness in the system.

My question, therefore, and this is what we are facing on a day-to-day basis now, is: Does the minister prefer to put our tax dollars towards the bureaucratic costs such as the Social Assistance Review Board, or is he prepared now to bite the bullet and not wait longer than six months, which is another week from now, and put our tax dollars into a benefit structure that will help poor people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would suggest to the honourable member that we are talking about two very different things. When I became minister, one of the priority issues brought to my attention was the great concern expressed by people all across the province, both within and without my ministry, about the efficacy of the then existing Social Assistance Review Board and the kinds of changes that absolutely had to be made in that board, because it was a fundamental component of justice in this province; that if my ministry officials or municipal officials were making decisions about people’s incomes there had to be a totally independent and functioning and effective board to which they could appeal.

That is what we have done. We have put a new chairman in place. We have put full-time people there. We have given them legal resources. We have given them clerical resources. Two thirds of the decisions are in favour of the clients. All of that has been improved dramatically. That is apart from the adequacy of the system itself, and must be considered apart from it.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: I believe I did recognize the member for London North earlier. I will now recognize the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I thought we were moving on to second supplementaries there.

TUITION FEES FOR REFUGEE CLAIMANTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities about refugees. By law in this province the Ministry of Education gives access to our education system to any refugee child, at some considerable difficulty these days to the boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto. Her ministry, on the other hand, by law makes it very difficult for refugee children to attend post-secondary education.

Can the minister explain why it is that a young woman named Dhamayanthy Perairavan, who went to grade 13 in this province last year and received marks that would have made her an Ontario scholar, is having to pay the foreign student fee of $10,000 to attend the University of Toronto this year instead of the $1,800 that any other Ontario resident would have to pay?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I can explain the reason a particular individual may have to pay the differential fee. That relates to the fact that while there is certainly no denial of access in terms of application to our post-secondary system, the policy has required that an individual have a hearing for convention refugee status in order to have a waiver of the differential fee. Otherwise, they are considered to be applicants of non-Ontario citizenship. Of course, once that hearing has taken place and refugee status is granted, that differential fee is waived.

At the same time, I also feel it is important to recognize that the very large backlog which has existed in having those hearings take place has created a problem. That is something we are very concerned about. With the new approaches by the federal government in this area, it is our hope that the backlog will be cleared and the concerns in this area will be alleviated.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister should know that this family has been in the country for a year and a half now. They had their interview a year ago tomorrow. They have still heard nothing. Three people in that family are working and paying taxes, including one sister who cannot afford to go to university at all, except that she is paying for two courses at $1,000 each, again as a foreign student.

Can the minister tell us whether she is willing to bring in a program to reimburse these families who have been held up so long on these waiting lists once they receive refugee status, or is she going to continue to treat all refugees as second-class citizens, unlike our Ministry of Education, which opens its arms to them?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I can assure the honourable member and the members of this House that because we are concerned about the implications of our policy, and while it has been difficult to have an alternate policy under the current situation, we are in fact reviewing that policy. We are looking very carefully at changes in the federal legislation to see whether they alleviate the situation. We are also looking at whether that policy needs to be changed in relation to different points of access and whether to waive the differential fee. We will certainly undertake to look at specific concerns that arise because of this policy.

ASSISTANCE FOR DIABETICS

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. As the minister is probably aware, in 1984, a four-year, $2-million commitment was made to fund blood glucose monitors for diabetic patients. The program at that time just included children and was expanded in 1987 to include all diabetics, but no extra funds were allocated to the program at that time.

Of the original $2-million commitment made in 1984, some $264,000 was not spent in the first and second years. The ministry indicated it will not give the Canadian Diabetes Association the balance of the original commitment, even though the association has over $160,000 in outstanding claims. That does not include claims that they have not taken since December 31. They had to suspend payment because they do not have the money.

My question to the minister is will she make the commitment today to fund the outstanding balance of the amount that was originally committed?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Canadian Diabetes Association, in fact, runs a program to provide these monitors. The reality is and the facts are that the program was originally designed for children. The Canadian Diabetes Association informed the ministry that there were excess funds that were available, and the ministry permitted the Canadian Diabetes Association to expand its program within available funds. This is a question of program design, and we are reviewing that at the present time.

Mr. Eves: The minister is quite accurate in just about every respect. In fact, that is just what I said during my question. But the problem is the minister talks about preventive medicine and community-based health care. As she said, these monitors allow diabetics to test their own blood-sugar levels in their own homes. They allow diabetics to monitor the effectiveness of their diabetic controls, so they can adjust their insulin or see their doctor, if need be. It is an important preventive tool they can use to prevent some of the side effects of diabetes, such as kidney failure and blindness.

The Premier made a commitment to the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Ontario division, of which he is an honorary patron, I might add, on January 16 that it would get this money that had not been spent in the first two years. But the ministry officials, in a meeting on January 31, said they were not sure they could give it the money.

Will the minister make a commitment today, fulfil the commitment the Premier made on January 16, to provide that $264,000?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Canadian Diabetes Association has assured the ministry that adequate funds are available in this fiscal year to meet program needs.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING

Mr. McGuigan: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Farmers in southwestern Ontario are making their plans now for their 1989 crops, and their marketing boards are entering negotiations with processors on price and terms and conditions of sale. They are understandably nervous in view of free trade now being a fact and in view of mergers they see in the beverage industry, which of course is part of the food industry.

They see, for instance, the claim by United States processors that ice cream is not a dairy product. Therefore, in their view, our market is open to US ice cream producers. To increase our options in marketing our products, can the minister tell us what his ministry is doing to promote Ontario’s food products in world markets?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: In this brave new world of free trade, where there was supposed to be a harmonious relationship between the United States and Canada, we now find the swords are drawn. Canada and the United States are now taking each other to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade over the importation of such products as ice cream and yoghurt.

Mr. Villeneuve: What are you doing? We want to know what you are doing.

1440

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The very member who is interjecting, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, is the one who supported free trade, despite the fact that it is going to cost the agriculture and food industry of this province $100 million. The only thing that is going to save our industry is producing a superior quality product.

I am pleased to say that we are moving our superior products into other countries, amounting to about $2.1 billion every year to the Ontario economy. My ministry has conducted 56 outgoing trade missions, promoting 37 different countries around the world in 1988. Seventy-seven Ontario companies participated in these international –

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. McGuigan: A few months ago, I called the minister’s office to get in touch with him. They said he was in Japan. I wonder if the minister can tell us what happened on that particular visit.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The honourable member is quite correct. I did accompany a trade mission to Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea early last year.

We learned that prospects for increased sales to these markets are excellent. Hong Kong imports almost 100 per cent of its food and Japan imports about 30 per cent of its food. It is a potential market for this country without question. The participating Ontario companies reported more than $1 million in new sales to Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan upon their return from this trade mission. As well, these companies reported that they could easily increase sales to that part of the world by 25 per cent in 1989.

This is just one example of our successes.

Mr. Brandt: You didn’t have that answer written down, did you Jack?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It’s a lot better than shopping on Sunday in Port Huron, I tell you.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Members are wasting the time for others who would like to ask questions.

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Farnan: I have a question to the Minister of Correctional Services. For several months, correctional officers have been protesting cutbacks in staffing and overcrowding in jails and detention centres. I draw to the minister’s attention a recent incident at Metropolitan Toronto East Detention Centre where two officers were pulled off the floor, leaving one officer on night shift to cover a special needs area with 70 inmates. Some of these inmates were sharing cells and all could be classified as either potentially suicidal, in active psychotic states or as violent and aggressive individuals.

Can the minister explain how such a situation could occur just one year after the inquest into the death of Senior Cardinal, who committed suicide in the early hours of the morning, in which the coroner’s jury recommended that additional staff be on duty at night? Will the minister recognize that the incident I have described is symptomatic of the dangerous situations in which we place correctional officers as a result of staff cutbacks?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I appreciate the question from my critic in the official opposition party and I will be happy to look into that occurrence for him.

Mr. Farnan: The minister claimed during the recent estimates debate that our institutions are presently housing a much higher risk population than was the case just a few years ago. Contributing to this situation is the increasing number of inmates requiring psychiatric treatment. The minister should be aware that the majority of Workers’ Compensation Board claims among correctional officers are usually in circumstances involving inmates in need of psychiatric care.

Will the minister recognize the fact that his policy of staff cutbacks and overcrowding puts correctional officers at risk? Because the injured officers are ending up on workers’ compensation it is a policy that is not only dangerous, but also very expensive?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would like to argue with my critic about the staffing arrangements in our institutions across the province. As I would hope the critic had remembered from our estimates, we have had an increase of 34 per cent of our correctional officers over the last five years in institutions while at the same time a very marginally small increase, around two per cent or three per cent, of people incarcerated in our system. We have really greatly increased the level of supervision of offenders in the Ontario situation.

Our job is to make sure that we manage a system across this province, and I think we are doing a good job of that.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Elizabeth Mussell is a young constituent of mine. She suffers from a very rare condition, which results in an excess of iron in her blood, a condition which her doctors say is fatal for her without proper treatment. In order to stay alive, Elizabeth requires only a one-year supply of the drug Desferal, which is her life’s blood at this point, and a $3,000 special infusion pump to administer it.

Elizabeth needs access to the drug benefit plan to pay for this treatment. Will the minister personally intervene and examine this matter to find out why Elizabeth’s barrier to this lifesaving treatment has become the denial of access the program?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: At present the Ontario drug benefit plan covers approximately one million senior citizens over the age of 65 and those people on social assistance through the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

One of the concerns I have is that people have access to the very best therapeutic results as a result of the drugs they are taking. Many questions have been raised and that was the reason I established the Lowy drug inquiry.

As the member would know, recommendations from that inquiry are being implemented at this time. I would suggest to him that if there are any specific cases he would like me to look into, I would be pleased to give him the answer on an individual basis. If anyone or any group wants to make a presentation or present a brief to the Lowy drug inquiry to raise this issue, I think that is the appropriate forum and that is the reason I established the inquiry.

Mr. Jackson: Elizabeth does not have time, her doctors tell her, in order to make a brief to the ministry. I appreciate that you will look into it specifically. She is having as much trouble fighting the barriers set up by the ministry as she is in fighting this life-threatening condition.

She cannot qualify for the drug benefit plan because she is not on welfare. Just because she is not on welfare does not mean that she can afford the one $60,000 treatment that is required. Second, the minister will find that her ministry has been unable to decide whether the necessary medical apparatus, in this case, an infusion pump, can go on the approved list of her assistive devices branch. Her ministry is taking its time, but time is running out for Elizabeth. She is caught in some red tape created by the Ministry of Health.

Thousands of people, many in life-threatening situations, have to deal with delay, with phone lines that are always busy and with health officials who cannot make up their minds. What support mechanisms are available for people who need to cut through red tape created by the Ministry of Health, especially when it comes to life-threatening situations?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Because of my desire to make sure that people have equity in access to the effective quality drugs and drug therapies they need and to medical services they need, I established the Lowy drug inquiry. On an individual basis, I am always pleased to look at the cases to determine whether or not there is a program that that individual applies for and I would ask the member to send me details.

The Ontario drug benefit plan is available to seniors and social assistance recipients; it is not a plan that is available to individuals beyond that. There are, however, some hospital-based programs for the provision of drugs for special needs, such as the program for patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome in the hospitals. As well, he knows that I announced the hospital-based programs for both thalassemia and cystic fibrosis. If there is any group that believes there are financial barriers to access to needed drug therapies, I would advise them to contact the Lowy drug inquiry. If there are individual cases, please give me that information.

1450

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

Ms. Hart: My question is to the Minister of Energy. If Ontario is to strengthen its competitive position, we must have a reliable, secure, safe and cost-efficient supply of energy. We must also develop and use that energy in an environmentally safe way.

Given the concept of sustainable development as contained in the Brundtland report, there is an increasing need to develop new, indigenous, alternative, renewable energy supply options. Could the minister tell the House what the recently introduced amendments to the Power Corporation Act and memorandum of understanding do to encourage the development of alternative energy supply?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I thank the honourable member for her very serious interest in this matter. I wish to assure the Legislature that the new amendments to the Power Corporation Act will continue to ensure that Ontario will have safe and reliable supplies of electricity at reasonable costs and provided in an environmentally sound way.

This government has attached a great deal of importance to the development of new, indigenous and alternative and renewable sources of supply. These projects tend to be smaller in size, require less capital and can be put into operation more quickly, so they give our electricity system some flexibility.

The new amendments to the Power Corporation Act will ensure that Ontario Hydro is responsive to government policies and to public priorities. Specifically, the legislative package on this matter will require Hydro to provide a long-range strategic plan that includes targets for conservation and parallel generation and will give the utility the authority to provide such financial incentives and technical –

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seemed like quite a full answer. Supplementary.

Ms. Hart: My supplementary to the minister is to ask what Ministry of Energy programs are offered and how much funding is available to the public for research and development of alternative energy supplies.

Hon. Mr. Wong: The major ministry program is EnerSearch, a successful multi-year program which provides assistance to the private sector for the research, development, testing and initial demonstration of innovative energy technologies in Ontario. The EnerSearch program has been in operation since January 1986 and, to date, 196 proposals from the private sector have been received and 47 projects have been approved, for a total government contribution of $5.3 million. Estimated expenditures under the EnerSearch program in the 1988-89 fiscal year are about $2.5 million.

The ministry also contributes to research and development funds directed towards alternative transportation fuels. The ministry has contributed $125,000, for example, to the Canadian Gas Association technology research and development fund; $75,000 to the research fund of the Propane Gas Association –

Mr. Speaker: Once again, that sounds like a fairly complete answer.

PROPOSED WATER PIPELINE

Mrs. Grier: On September 22, 1986, the Minister of the Environment announced that he had approved construction of a pipeline to bring drinking water from Lake Huron to the town of Wallaceburg. He also promised that he would pay 75 per cent of the cost of that pipeline after deduction of the federal contribution. The municipal contribution was subsequently achieved, but of course we had no commitment from the federal government, and so two and a half years later, the pipeline has not even been begun.

We were glad to hear that the Minister of the Environment was meeting with his federal counterpart this week, and I would like to hear from the minister whether or not he obtained a commitment from the Honourable Lucien Bouchard to finally construct the Wallaceburg pipeline.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is most appropriate that I get a question from the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, because I am wearing my Etobicoke tie just in recognition of all of the Etobicoke members who are in the House today.

Specifically looking at the question the member asked, whether I have discussed this matter with federal officials, the fact is that our officials have been in contact with the federal officials on a number of occasions to determine whether they are prepared to make a contribution to what we consider to be a desirable project.

We have proceeded from our end in terms of engineering, in terms of looking at all the plans to lay out for this project. Municipalities, in fairness to them, have most certainly done their part by putting together their proposals in terms of funding and by giving the kind of co-operation that is necessary.

In the specific meeting with the Minister of the Environment for the federal government yesterday, I did not receive a commitment from the minister at that time on that specific project. It was a private meeting, but as on a number of occasions, we discussed the possibility of the federal government becoming more involved financially in assisting to meet environmental goals, objectives and obligations of an international nature.

I think the member would agree with me, though, that in this specific case we have a lot of –

Mr. Speaker: I thank the minister.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: -- Ontario responsibility and I hope my ministry can provide that kind of funding. Oh, I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Your apology is accepted.

Mrs. Grier: I hope that at the very least the minister raised this specific project with the federal minister. The point I would like to make with this Minister of the Environment is that while it is all very well to wish that the federal government would live up to its responsibilities and make a contribution, the fact remains that the people of the town of Wallaceburg are still not able to get pure drinking water from Lake Huron.

In 1986, the estimated cost of this pipeline was $22 million; the amount of federal contribution the minister was seeking was $2 million. Would the minister not agree that perhaps it might have been better for the environment and for the health of the people of Wallaceburg to have forgotten the negotiating niceties, put up the $2 million and built the pipeline? His 75 per cent share must be rising, so he could in fact have covered the $2 million if he had got on with the job three years ago.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The first part of the answer I want to deal with is the question of the quality of water in the Wallaceburg community. Members will know that under the drinking water surveillance program in Ontario, we do testing rather frequently, and one of the places tested is Wallaceburg. The water has met all the objectives of the Ministry of the Environment as it has in other communities across the province.

In that specific situation, we have a quality of water which is acceptable under the standards and guidelines we have established. What has been perceived as the problem is the potential for future problems that might exist. I hope that the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement and other initiatives taken in terms of control orders will be of considerable assistance in solving that.

What we offered was the flat 75 per cent, regardless of where the other 25 per cent came from. We put our money up front. Our money has been on the table all this time as the government of Ontario. I am disappointed that the federal government has not participated, but –

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It appears there are some members wasting time so that other members cannot ask questions.

BEEF MARKETING

Mr. Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The beef producers’ vote committee, in its background information on the vote, says: “Within the scope of this vote, the Ontario government is not committed to providing funding to achieve cost production. A central aim of the beef producers, for a change, is cost of production.” Does the minister have any plans to give beef producers provincially funded cost-of-production support?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Simple answer: No plans whatsoever. They will get their cost of production out of the marketplace the same way they do with dairy, eggs, chicken and turkeys, all of them under national supply management. All of them get their cost of production on the marketplace. That would be the same with the beef, if indeed they chose to go that route.

1500

Mr. Villeneuve: As I said in response to the minister’s earlier statement, without federal guidance I guess he is going nowhere and he has no plans at all. That is an admission, It seems quite surprising that the minister would agree to give the beef producers a supply management marketing board after making many statements saying that marketing boards were a thing of the past. How is this going to work? The minister does not have a plan.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The only one who does not have a plan over there is the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I have never seen anybody so out of touch with agriculture in all my life.

Anyway, if the voters chose to vote for a beef commission and if they chose to vote for the second item on the ballot, to have this beef commission strive for a national supply management program, then they will have to get all provinces on side. If all provinces agree to a national supply management program, which is permissible under legislation, then, of course, they will get their cost of production out of the marketplace. It is not the governments that pay them cost of production.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Last week, the minister returned from Davos, Switzerland, where he hosted a delegation of business leaders at the international conference on world trade. This event was organized by the World Economic Forum, a Swiss nonprofit and nonpartisan foundation. It was attended by some 800 executives from 64 countries, as well as 100 political and university leaders.

Can the minister update this Legislature on the objectives of the Ontario delegation at this conference and how well those objectives were realized?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure members know that once a year the World Economic Forum is held, and last year we were a featured jurisdiction. This year, British Columbia was the featured jurisdiction. Premier Vander Zalm, Premier Bourassa and several of their ministers, as well as representation from Ontario, were there to discuss economic factors that really impact on global trade. The major thrust was 1992 and what the impact of that was going to be, as well as dealing with such subjects as Third World debt and the prospects of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

We had a very substantial Ontario delegation. We had an opportunity to meet with world leaders in the fields of business, academia and politics. What we really did was establish and re-establish connections that we have had that we think are going to stand us in good stead in the future.

Mr. Faubert: By way of supplementary, I understand that with the advent of the Europe 1992 conference, which I believe will be here in Toronto, there will be many changes in global trade structures, the relationship in Europe and throughout the world. In fact, Lester Thurow, a Massachusetts economist, is quoted as saying that GATT is dead and that the multilateral trade system is splintering into separate trading blocs.

Can the minister advise the House if he concurs with this view and can he outline how the restructuring taking place in Europe will affect our global trading practices here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Professor Thurow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology made a statement in a forum that in his opinion GATT was dead. That was a very provocative statement. The world media picked up on it and there were headlines literally around the world saying, “In the Opinion of Leading Economist, GATT is Dead.”

What they did not report was that in that same panel there were several world authorities who disagreed with him. One of them was former Prime Minister of France Raymond Barre, who immediately took him to task and felt that 1992 was going to provide not Fortress Europe, but a stronger Europe.

I attended the GATT meetings, the midterm review, in Montreal. Without question, there are some problems, but certainly it is my feeling that GATT will survive. It is the feeling of other people as well.

We certainly are looking forward to participating in those ongoing discussions. As the member has already stated, later on this year we will be holding a major conference dealing with 1992, what is going to happen in Europe and how we in Ontario can respond to it.

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the fact that I have a very important question to the Minister of Mines. The minister will know that despite the fact that Algoma Steel Corp. posted a profit of $72.7 million on sales of $1.4 billion in 1988 and despite the fact that the Algoma Ore Division in Wawa has improved its productivity substantially so that it is probably the most productive iron ore mine in northern Ontario, Algoma Steel’s vice-president last week announced that the corporation will be making a study, between now and June, about the future of Algoma Ore Division in Wawa.

The minister will know that the subsidy for the Algoma Central Railway runs out in 1991. Can the minister tell us what the government’s plans are to ensure the viability of Algoma Ore Division in Wawa after 1991? What happens with regard to the freight rates and what discussions has the government had with Algoma Steel Corp. and the ACR regarding the future of Wawa after 1991?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my honourable friend that under the leadership of my colleagues and the government generally, we have taken a number of steps to revitalize the economy of the honourable member’s area. I will not take the time of question period to detail a number of the initiatives that we have taken in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to stimulate mineral exploration and development in the honourable member’s riding. He is aware of that.

This government, under the leadership of the Premier, has moved over the last few years to provide very specific support to the honourable member’s area of particular interest in this question. He knows of our interest. He knows that we have had a number of discussions with the economic development authorities in the area, and he can be assured that we will continue to do in the future what we have done in the past to provide the very highest level of support for the growth and economic development in the Algoma area.

PETITIONS

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: I have a series of petitions, the first of which is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“While we welcome the extension of GO train service to Ajax and Whitby, we question the present government’s ability to plan for the future when the parking lots at Ajax and Whitby are already filled to capacity, with no provision having been made for expansion, when the first westbound Lakeshore GO train each day, which formerly had 10 bilevel cars, has now been reduced to four cars, resulting in people sitting in the stairwells, blocking movement of those either embarking or disembarking from the train and when no provision for the ambulatory disabled was made at the new Pickering, Ajax or Whitby GO stations.”

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Brandt: The next petition I have for the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 37 persons in the riding represented by the member for Lambton (Mr. Smith), a government member, reads in part as follows:

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable with regard to funding and regulation and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

Mr. Speaker: Could I interrupt the member? I was just listening to the last petition. He realizes they should be addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, not the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr. Brandt: I was reading them the way they were presented to me. Obviously, the authors have in fact written them incorrectly. I will make that correction as I read it, sir.

I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor –

Mr. Speaker: As printed.

Mr. Brandt: -- the Lieutenant Governor -- as printed -- and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 224 persons from my riding.

To save the time of the House, this petition reads exactly like the petition I just read. To give the House the opportunity of not having to hear it a second time, I shall simply present this petition.

However, I have another one.

1510

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor -- as read -- and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 603 teachers from Sarnia and area which reads, in part, as follows:

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

Those are the four petitions I have to present to the Legislative Assembly.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Minister of Financial Institutions.

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

“That the auto insurance board’s proposed rate hikes of 35 to 40 per cent are unreasonable and unfounded. We, the undersigned, feel that we are being ‘had’ by the insurance companies and would like to see lower and fairer rates.”

This petition has been signed by approximately 450 residents of Sault Ste. Marie. I hope it is duly noted by the government with respect to the announcement to be made on Monday.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. McLean: I have a petition I would like to present. It is from the parishioners of St. Patrick’s in Phelpston and Our Lady of Lourdes in Elmvale.

“As a Christian community, we feel it is important to maintain Sunday as a day of worship. We would like to proclaim publicly our disapproval of open Sunday shopping. Not only do we disapprove of this practice, we want to strongly urge that this matter remain under provincial jurisdiction.”

This was addressed to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the people brought to my attention that he did not have the decency to present it to this Legislature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 175, An Act respecting transfers of Water.

Mr. Sterling: As members will recall, this particular bill was hotly debated on November 10 last, during a period of time leading up to a federal election. It was thought by all logical and sane people that this bill would be forgotten for ever, like some of the other legislation that was thrown up by this government to try to involve itself in a federal campaign.

Notwithstanding the fact that the results of their intervention in the federal election campaign had no positive effects for their federal Liberal colleagues, they seem to want to persist with regard to Bill 175.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not it is permitted within the ambit of the business of this House for the government to introduce a piece of legislation -- this is really on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for your assistance on this. Is it possible for the government to introduce a bill that is in effect redundant because it is provided for in other legislation the government already has in place at this time?

I am quite willing to go into the argument that for each and every section of this bill this government already has legislation in place that covers each and every point, as far as I can determine. In other words, all that is happening here this afternoon, which I consider a waste of the time of the Legislature, is that the government is striking a posture that it is doing something when in fact it has all the powers within the terms of two other pieces of legislation passed some time ago to do exactly what it is stating in this bill.

I want to know whether to pursue that argument. Would you advise me, Mr. Speaker, whether that would be a valid point of order? I do not want to go through all of the argument and then have you rule it does not matter whether it is redundant.

Mr. Speaker: I will listen to the minister briefly on that point.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to respond to that ridiculous request. We certainly did apply ourselves to the protection of water in Ontario and Canada because the government of Canada failed to do it. They put a bill in the federal legislature that died on the order paper and have not seen fit to put that bill back. That was an admission that water was at threat by the free trade agreement. It still is. This government intends to do everything it can to protect the water within the bounds of our jurisdiction, and to do it not only for Ontarians but all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to both members who have spoken. I have not known of any instance in the past when the Speaker has ruled on whether a bill has been in or out of order, other, probably, than bills introduced by opposition members that would expend funds.

I listened very carefully to the member for Carleton stating that different sections affected other legislation and in turn became redundant. I think that could be decided by the committee when it deals with each section. Therefore, I see nothing out of order in continuing the discussion of the motion before the House for second reading.

Mr. Sterling: Therefore, your ruling is that in spite of the fact that in my view this bill is really doing nothing to create new law in Ontario -- we can argue that issue later if they wish, but that is my view after carefully reading the bill and carefully reading other legislation dealing with this -- the government has every right, then, to waste the time of the opposition and the Legislature of Ontario by bringing forward another piece of legislation that does exactly what is already in place in law. Is that basically the position of the chair on our orders, that you can do it over again?

Mr. Speaker: The way I would have to respond, and I do not really wish to respond, is that the member is really wasting the time of the House by asking the Speaker questions on legislation. The bill is before the House. The House accepted to discuss it. Therefore, we are on second reading. I will recognize the member for discussion on second reading of the bill.

Mr. Sterling: I do not consider it a waste of time to discuss the point of order, because I think that if our orders do not provide that a member of the House, be it a minister or –

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe the member is arguing my decision that it is not a point of order the member has raised. I stated that originally. Would the member continue discussing the bill. He may challenge my ruling if he wishes.

Mr. Sterling: I am sorry that you are not interested –

Mr. Speaker: Order. A ruling can be challenged, but it is not debatable. Do you wish to continue discussion of the bill?

1520

Mr. Sterling: Yes, I will continue the discussion with regard to this piece of legislation. Since I presume the standing orders permit the government to bring forward a piece of legislation that in effect is redundant, I will show members of the Legislature, and I hope the public, just what a farce Bill 175 really is. I refer to other legislation that is already in place in our statute books at this time.

First of all, I would like to refer to the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, which is chapter 229 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario. Under that particular act, I will read section 2:

“The purpose of this act is to provide for the use of waters of the lakes and rivers of Ontario and to regulate improvements in them, and to provide for,

“(a) the preservation and equitable exercise of public rights in or over such waters;

“(b) the protection of the interests of the riparian owners;

“(c) the use, management and perpetuation of the fish, wildlife and other natural resources dependent on such waters;”

Clauses (d) and (e) give the other parts that this act refers to.

Then of course there is the very all-empowering section 3 of the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. I refer to subsection 3(1) which says, “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations” -- that means the cabinet of Ontario can make regulations -- ”(b) respecting generally the use under this act of lakes and rivers and waters therein.”

Therefore, this minister, through his cabinet, has every right to sit in the cabinet room and make regulations controlling the use of our lakes and rivers and the waters therein.

I further refer to –

Mr. Haggerty: The member does not understand section 6 of the bill.

Mr. Fleet: He probably does not understand any of the bill, to be honest, Ray.

Mr. Sterling: If some of the other members want to speak with regard to this bill after they have read some of the legislation, I invite them to do so. They like to chirp without really having much knowledge about what is in fact in the legislation.

At any rate, under subsection 44(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, “Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the minister may make regulations,” so even under this act the minister has a greater power than under the other act I read previously. The minister may make regulations. I refer to clause 44(1)(r) -- it gives an indication of the wide range of regulatory powers the minister has under the Ontario Water Resources Act -- which in particular refers to “regulating and controlling the use of water from any source of supply.”

Therefore, we have a piece of legislation, An Act respecting transfers of Water, that in fact has no new meaning. We have, in my view, a sham with regard to the use of this Legislature’s valuable time in terms of trying to create a political statement by this government that somehow through Bill 175 it is going to save the people of Ontario from the transfer of water to other jurisdictions, including the United States.

Further, on November 10, when we debated this bill the last time, I engaged the minister briefly in a debate and asked him point-blank whether or not this piece of legislation in any way referred to our Great Lakes. The minister, trying to avoid the question, did not answer.

The fact of the matter is that this act, Bill 175, An Act respecting transfers of Water, does not refer to the water in Lake Superior, in Lake Huron, in Lake St. Clair, in Lake Erie, in Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence River. Therefore, any attempt by this minister or this government to try to pretend that they could stop the pouring of water into the United States by this piece of legislation is nothing but a farce.

The water in Lake Superior, Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, etc., is of course controlled by the International Joint Commission, which is made up of representatives from both Canada and the United States. Therefore, when someone diverts water out of those Great Lakes, it has to be with the approval of the International Joint Commission.

Not only that, but the United States has one of the Great Lakes, Lake Michigan, totally within its boundaries; therefore, it is not even subject to International Joint Commission control. While people in Canada would suggest there is some control by Canada over the taking of water from Lake Michigan, the Americans make it clear that is not within our control.

As people know, at present, at this time, there is a diversion of water out of Lake Michigan into the Mississippi River system, long known as the Chicago diversion, which takes water out of our Great Lakes and diverts it into the United States. That is presently controlled by the American system through the Supreme Court of the United States.

Therefore, not only is this bill redundant in terms of what it does in creating new law, but it also has no practical effect for most of the fresh water the majority of our population relies on from day to day.

The other point that should be brought forward with regard to this piece of legislation is that the management of the Great Lakes, in my view, requires a consultative approach, which the former government took, with the United States. In fact, as recently as 1985, this province along with Quebec and eight US states along the Great Lakes signed a charter of principles aimed at protecting the Great Lakes from the threat of large-scale water diversions and general overuse. That was the method by which the former Conservative government approached the water use problem with regard to fresh water in Canada and in Ontario.

We find that Bill 175 is an affront or an attempted affront to the people in those eight states who wanted to enter into some kind of agreement with regard to diverting water away from the Great Lakes without consultation, which I would argue that some of the states in the United States appear to have in law at this time. Now we have a government -- on the basis of trying to fight an election which is already over, that being the federal election on November 21 -- which continues to affront those eight states and continues to not make the problem better, but make the problem worse.

1530

What waters does Bill 175 include? What it includes is all of the water from the north shore of Lake Ontario, the north shore of Lake Erie, the east shore of Lake Huron and the north shore of Lake Superior. In general terms, we are talking about the water in water basins from there on up. The only way you could possibly control the extraction of water from the Great Lakes, or the water levels, would be to dam each and every river and creek along those shores, to ensure that there was not going to be a transfer of water away from us through the Great Lakes system.

Quite frankly, we find this bill a farce. We consider it an affront to the legislative process in that it does not really achieve anything. We were extremely amazed at this time, when we are trying to wind up this legislative session, that the government would persist in bringing this forward. We can only assume that it is a further method of antagonizing the opposition to bring us to sit here longer and longer. Perhaps we will be sitting here to the end of June if it continues to bring forward pieces of legislation which have really no practical effect.

The Conservative Party is really ambivalent as to whether or not to support this particular legislation, because the bill does not really have any positive effect for the people of Ontario. The problem of voting against this is the interpretation that this government will use, that it is putting forward in terms of its style of government. In fighting a rearguard election, it would likely go out and say that we are willing to sell off all of our water to the United States as a result of our nonsupport for Bill 175.

Mr. Faubert: You are pre-empting the criticism.

Mr. Sterling: Of course I am.

Mr. Furlong: That is what any smart politician would do, right?

Mr. Sterling: That is right.

I would hope that the Minister of Natural Resources will turn his mind to more important matters. There are many problems within his ministry that we are hearing from day to day. For instance, with regard to the conservation authorities, we are very upset with the most recent recommendations of this government to amalgamate conservation authorities across our province.

I get the answer from the minister that it is in the study stage. Quite frankly, we cannot talk about anything in this government that is not in the study stage. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) says that they will consult, and he has been consulting now for three or four years, with regard to waste disposal sites in Ontario. During this Liberal government’s reign, there has not been one new waste disposal site opened for solid garbage in Ontario, so I am told.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is totally untrue. But you can be sure we won’t make the mistakes the Tories did on those sites.

Mr. Sterling: They do not make a mistake but they never state their position and they never go forward. Quite frankly, I think a government should make a mistake from time to time. If it is going to proceed at all, if it is going to progress at all, it has to be willing to put its position forward from time to time.

I am sure every member in the Legislature has read my remarks on November 10 when we debated this bill before. If members refer to my opening remarks, I said at that time that the greatest threat to our water resources, the resources of our province, was John Turner, the Liberal leader. I referred to his election promises of $32 billion, and I alleged at that time that we would have to sell our water in order to pay for those election promises.

Thank goodness, the people of Canada -- in fact, the people of Ontario -- in spite of this shameful bill, have decided to elect Conservatives to represent Ontario in our federal Parliament. The people of Canada have elected Conservatives to represent them at the Canadian level. I am sure the ministers responsible at the federal level will negotiate in good faith with our American friends to make certain that our common water resources, which are the most important resources in our province, will in fact be put to the best use.

That will not be achieved through cheap confrontational bills like Bill 175. Therefore, I do not think this is a happy or proud day in the history of the Legislature of Ontario. I think it is a sad day when we have to consider such trivial legislation which can only lead to worse relations with regard to utilizing our water resources in the future.

Mr. Pollock: I want to agree with the comments of my friend the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) that this bill is an outright farce. There was a historical agreement signed by Premier Bill Davis back in June 1982 protecting the fresh water in our Great Lakes. Of course, these sentiments were also mentioned by the honourable member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) in his capacity as Minister of Natural Resources when he addressed a symposium in Minnesota back in May 1984.

I mentioned to the minister at the time of estimates that if he thinks this particular legislation is going to stop people from pumping water out of our Great Lakes system with irrigation pumps, he is dreaming. He might think he has the authority to stop Canadians or Ontarians from pumping water out of our Great Lakes with irrigation pumps, but he certainly does not have the authority to stop the Americans, and I am sure the Americans are pumping three times as much water out in the summertime as Canadians are.

I feel the bill is just a complete farce. There was already agreement in place back in 1909 with regard to the transfer of water through the Chicago canal. This particular bill does not enter into the picture there at all because that is totally within the United States and, therefore, we really do not have a whole lot to say about it other than an agreement with the United States.

I just wanted to put those few comments on the record and give my views of the whole situation.

1540

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: When the two gentlemen made the comments about our American friends and trusting the federal government to lie down with the Americans and come up with a decent agreement, it brought back something that I think is a reasonable assessment of the situation. I read one time where there was a gentleman who, when making an analogy of this huge nation and our small nation side by side, described it as an elephant and a mouse. I think the one that is more appropriate in this case is the saying, “A lion can lie down with a lamb,” but I am afraid that in this case the lamb would be in the lion’s stomach. That is how much I trust the arrangement that we can make with our friends to the south if they were to want our water.

I have to say I am very disappointed that the members think this is a waste of time and that we are not doing something to protect this very important resource. That is a real disappointment. I want to reiterate what I said before, and members have to listen very carefully to what I am saying. Those who have studied the free trade agreement did not agree that our water was protected. It was many, many people. For some reason, the federal government decided it had better take another look and it did. It put a bill on the record, Bill C-130, because it began to be convinced that there was a threat to that particular case.

The member talked about the election. This is where we do lose in elections sometimes. While the federal government was being pressured and brought in Bill C-130 to protect our water, it did not reintroduce it. That is a very good and urgent reason we in this province and in this Legislature should do everything we can. Maybe we cannot protect it to the degree that a federal government can, but we are the only province that borders on four of the Great Lakes. We have a duty to perform, not only for the people in Ontario but, indeed, for all the people of Canada.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to express my agreement with many of the comments that were made by our colleague from the Conservative Party on this particular issue.

The minister obviously does not understand what he has in his own bill. This bill is providing him with the opportunity of selling our water. There is no prohibition whatsoever from the diversion of water out of Ontario in this bill. If this minister had been serious about what he was intending to do, he would have crafted a bill that made some sense rather than this piece of garbage we have before us today.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that.

The Acting Speaker: The member has already had his opportunity for comments and questions. Are there any other members who wish to comment upon the speech by the member for Carleton? Does the member for Carleton wish to respond in reply?

Mr. Sterling: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the two members of the opposition parties for commenting on my speech. I thank the minister for commenting. I disagree with him wholeheartedly and hold to my comments with regard to how useless this piece of legislation really is.

I also noted that no members of the Liberal back bench, although they were quite ready to chirp during my speech, saw fit to rise during that period of time and add their significant comments with regard to this piece of legislation. So I trust that we will go on with this government in terms of bringing forward bills like this if, in fact, we do not have intelligent debate from members of the government side to bring ministers into line when they bring forward pieces of legislation like this.

Mr. Sterling: I will tell the member over there what we used to do. I brought in, when I was a backbencher with regard to the former Conservative government, amendments to ministers’ bills which the ministers did not agree with. We debated bills when we were in the back bench of the Conservative majority government. We did not sit back and let ministers and their staffs run over our heads with ridiculous pieces of legislation like Bill 175.

This piece of legislation is nothing but a political ploy. If anything, it brings into question the former minister’s control and the former cabinet’s control over our water resources and, therefore, probably weakens our position rather than strengthens it.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill, although I think it is a needless exercise that we have to spend an afternoon of this session on this bill, which was really a political document from the Liberal Party, which does not do anything positive and, as it has been written, does something very negative in terms of our control over our water resources in Ontario.

The minister introduced this bill back in late June 1988, in the months leading up to a federal election campaign, when the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was in a position of posturing, vis-à-vis the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Liberal Party and John Turner, and introduced three supposedly anti-free trade bills at that time which were to show that Ontario was doing something about its previous commitment during the 1987 provincial election campaign that there would be no free trade agreement.

Once we saw the bill, and everyone around the province saw the bill, everyone recognized that the bill never achieved what the Premier and what the minister stated were the intentions of the bill, which were to stop the possible diversion or export of our water resources from Ontario. In fact, the bill does the reverse. The bill gives the minister himself -- not the Legislature of the province -- the sole authority to decide that he is going to license the export of water and gives him the right to start charging fees on water. The only beneficiary of the bill is the minister, who could start collecting fees on potential exports in the future.

The explanatory notes to the bill read as follows, and they are relatively short: “The minister is authorized to attach conditions to an approval and to require payment for a transfer of water. Approval will be refused or revoked if the minister” -- the minister alone – “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.”

I do not understand how we, as a Legislature, can expect to give one individual minister the authority for a major transfer of water, a resource which is so critical to the long-term future of our province, a birthright of the people of this province. This bill, in its own explanatory notes, states that the purpose of it is to give the minister himself that sole authority.

If the members look at some of the detail of the bill in terms of what the bill gives the minister the right to do, subsection 4(1) says, “The minister may approve a transfer of water out of a provincial drainage basin subject to such conditions and subject to the payment to the crown of such amount as the minister considers appropriate.”

This has nothing to do with prohibition of water diversion out of Ontario. This is a bill to give the minister the licensing authority so that he can control it and charge a fee for it. The minister’s only concern here is whether he is going to have a share of the action when a major water transfer is proposed to Ontario.

It goes on to say, in subsection 4(2), “The amount to be paid to the crown for a transfer of water under subsection 4(1) may be a lump sum, a fixed periodic payment, an amount calculated according to the quantity of water transferred or any combination thereof, and may be made payable on such terms as are prescribed or as the minister determines.”

1550

We not only have the authority to sell, but the bill actually goes into detail of how the payment arrangements can be made to the minister. If the minister had been honest with the people of the province, he would have admitted what he was doing and not pretended that what he was attempting to do was stop the export of water out of Ontario.

In the minister’s own statement on June 29, 1988, the day the bill was introduced, he said: “The act prohibits the person from taking water out of a provincial drainage basin without the express consent of the Minister of Natural Resources.” That is a pretty big loophole, giving the minister the complete authority to approve and collect payment on the export of our water.

The minister does say: “This government is on record for its opposition to large-scale water diversions which we feel will not benefit the long-term interests of Ontario or Canada. For example, on January 7, 1986, the Premier stood in this House and spoke out against the GRAND Canal scheme.”

That was in a response to a question I posed to the Premier back in early 1986, at which time there was serious talk of linking the sale of our water with the free trade agreement. As a follow-up to that, a resolution came before the House which is much stronger than anything in this bill and in fact gets to the essence of what this bill should be getting at. I would ask the minister to go back and look at amendments. We have proposed some amendments to this bill that contain the essence of what this parliament has already agreed to. This resolution was passed in May 1986 by this parliament.

I will read the resolution:

“That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the water resources of both the Great Lakes basin and the James Bay basin are precious public resources, and recognizing the constitutional jurisdiction of Ontario to manage and protect its freshwater resources, and recognizing the Great Lakes charter to which Ontario is a signatory, and recognizing that Simon Reisman, Canada’s chief trade negotiator, has publicly stated that the GRAND Canal project could provide key leverage to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States, this House condemns any attempt to link free trade with diversion of Ontario’s water resources; that water resources cannot be part of any trade discussions with the United States, and that Ontario will not consent to any major diversion of its fresh water, now or in the future.”

That was passed by this House overwhelmingly, with only several of the Conservative members voting against it at that point; but that is the intent that has been stated by the legislators of this province. I would ask the minister why he did not live up to that intent and ensure that this bill did the last key point: “Ontario will not consent to any major diversion of its fresh water, now or in the future.”

This bill should have got directly to the point of the matter and absolutely prohibited any such diversion. Then the minister would have the support, I believe, of every member of this House. The loopholes he has in this bill the way it is mean that we as legislators have to trust him for the future of that resource. I would far prefer to see it legislated that he does not have that right to license and start collecting a fee on such a potential major scheme as the GRAND Canal project.

Of course, no one ever expected the government to proceed on this bill seriously, since it had been obviously so flawed and so quickly drafted in the political heat preceding the federal election last year. The government obviously had not put any time into the constructing of this bill, and now we are going to have to go through major amendment after amendment to try to get any semblance of value out of it.

The minister would have been far wiser to go back and craft a bill that accomplished what had been the intent, I think, and the hope of many members of this Legislature, that we would see an absolute prohibition on interbasin diversions of water out of this province. We are here today discussing this bill because the government does not have any agenda other than holding up the process of the parliament of Ontario with bills which have no real value.

We could easily have been adjourned this week if it had not been for the stalling tactics of this government and the bringing forward of bills such as this one which only create a fuss, because they are so poorly worded, with the result that we have to go in and make major changes to them in order to give them any value whatsoever.

The concerns behind this bill clearly go back to the possibility of major water diversions out of the province. I will speak to that intent assuming that the intent of the bill is to prohibit such water diversions and with the hope that this bill can be amended sufficiently once it gets into committee so that we can put some value back into the bill as a whole.

On the issue of water diversions, our party and I think most people in Ontario and presumably most members of this Legislature are absolutely opposed to major water diversions out of the province. This became a major issue during the free trade debate because of the fact that the trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, had been a former major proponent of sale of Canadian water.

Particularly disturbing was an article that Simon Reisman authored for Canadian Business Review. This article is entitled Canada-United States Trade at the Crossroads: Options for Growth. The subheadings read: “A comprehensive Canada-United States free trade agreement would be good for Canada and Canadians and Canadian water could be used to negotiate a deal.”

This article was written by Simon Reisman just before he was named the chief trade negotiator for the federal government. Obviously, that created major concerns within various communities of the province and right across Canada with regard to the impact such a proposal might have.

I think there probably still have to be some concerns about whether this link may continue to be pursued, because we know the free trade agreement that has been agreed to at this point is not set in stone. There is still a negotiating period over the next seven years during which various definitions, of subsidies particularly, are going to have to be agreed to between the two countries.

In a wide-ranging negotiation procedure, we could well be held up for ransom again by the Americans, and given the lack of success of our federal government in getting reasonable terms -- totally unreasonable terms -- in what was negotiated in the free trade agreement last year, there have to be concerns about what might be traded off in the future in order to try to protect any Canadian interest whatsoever in the next few years.

I will read the summary of the article, a major nine-page article by Simon Reisman:

“This article briefly reviews the history of Canada-United States trade relations and concludes that a comprehensive free trade agreement between the two countries would give Canada access to the large US market but Canada must negotiate conditions that make a trade agreement vital to the United States. The author” -- that is, Simon Reisman -- ”proposes that the United States be offered access to Canadian water by converting James Bay from a saltwater body to a freshwater lake by building a sea-level dike across the mouth of the bay.” This is known as the GRAND Canal project.

1600

The article goes into considerable detail about this project, with the damming and the canals that would be required. According to this article, “The project would move into Lake Huron a volume of fresh water equivalent to twice the flow of the Great Lakes system.” That has to be a horrendous amount of water. The environmental impact of that kind of diversion is really beyond our imagination.

As well we have the concerns about the costs of the project, and from the article: “The magnitude of the GRAND Canal project is five times that of the Apollo moon project. The project will cost approximately $100 billion current dollars and will take 10 years to construct and put into operation.”

The federal government has helped the GRAND Canal group to put together fancy documents and come up with studies and recommendations. We have a fancy coloured document that I think all members of the Legislature received from them last year, partially financed by the federal government as well.

Of particular concern is that this is not just a fly-by-night operation. The proponents behind this project include some of the most influential business groupings in Canada. The chairman of Grandco is Louis Desmarais, from one of the most powerful families in Canada. Included on the list of directors is a representative of the SNC Group and also a representative of Bechtel Canada, probably the two biggest construction firms in Canada. Bechtel is one of the largest construction firms in the world, one of the largest private companies in the world, with close ties into President Bush’s administration in the United States.

As well on the director’s list is a representative of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. With this kind of a project one could imagine that the energy requirement to change the direction of the flow from into James Bay back into the Great Lakes involves the building of a huge system of canals. There are pictures of canals across the north of Ontario with various dam sites and power plants required.

We have the lifting of, as it says, “double the volume of the Great Lakes system, a height much higher than Niagara Falls.” Trying to lift double the volume of –

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: They wouldn’t dare make it higher than Niagara Falls.

Mr. Morin-Strom: It is, because the elevation in northern Ontario down to James Bay is a lot higher than Niagara Falls, so you have the energy required to lift that water continuously. The only way you can possibly do it is with major nuclear power plants across northern Ontario, so that one could certainly see the interests of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

Mr. Haggerty: Thousands of jobs.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Thousands of jobs? We totally destroy our northern wilderness, flooding a good portion of northern Ontario and causing untold environmental disruption. I do not know how we afford the $100 billion either.

One never knows how far this kind of proposal may go, but when you have major business interests, major construction interests and nuclear power interests involved in proposing these kinds of projects, they have to be looked at seriously. This particular one, as I have stated, was written and proposed by Simon Reisman, so one certainly can understand why, as the parliament in Ontario, we had to address this issue with this resolution in 1986. That resolution clearly indicated the position of the legislators of this province “that Ontario will not consent to any major diversion of its fresh water, now or in the future.”

I do not know why the minister has not taken the proper steps to ensure that this bill carried out that express wish of the people of Ontario and stopped the diversion of water, rather than the farcical result we have here, which allows the minister the licensing power and specifies the way in which we can charge the exporters for potential water diversions out of Ontario.

I think it is unfortunate that this political bill, hastily constructed just in advance of the election campaign starting last year to create a positioning of the Premier versus the Prime Minister, has to be pursued now, rather than the minister going back and constructing a proper bill that makes sense and in fact accomplishes what we all want to do, and that is to stop, now and for ever, any possibility of major diversions of water out of Ontario.

I would ask this minister to reconsider, and if he will not withdraw the bill, we are going to have to propose a number of amendments during committee stage in order to provide this bill with some semblance of teeth and some semblance of meeting the objective for which certainly this party stands.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I see the leader of the third -- the Leader of the Opposition is here, because he has –

Mr. B. Rae: It may not last for ever; at least get my title right. As long as I’ve got the title, use it.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I am pleased about it. Frankly, that is the truth.

The only thing I am a little disappointed about is that the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) obviously has not seen or agreed that the exchange between us was one done between, I think, two people who were honest with each other. It is something that maybe shocked him, that the minute he pointed out to me that there was some concern about the bill not stopping the transfer of water out of Canada into the United States, I did not hesitate for a moment. I hope the member will take me at my word, because I have my amendment ready to confirm the agreement that I made with his leader.

Obviously, the member does not listen to what his leader says -- I am talking to the member for Sault Ste. Marie -- because the comment was made that that very important aspect of this bill was going to be addressed. I know it may not be the appropriate time, but I will read that right into the record. This amendment says:

“Despite the trade agreement signed on the second day of January, 1988, by the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America or any law of Canada implementing the agreement, the minister shall refuse to give approval to a transfer of water out of a provincial drainage basin to a place outside Canada.”

That was a commitment that I made to the member’s leader. I mean to live up to it and I am sure that he trusts that I am going to do that.

I want to make certain that the member listens in the future to arrangements that are made by people on this side. I do not know why he finds it so strange that a minister is very much prepared when a very good amendment is proposed to accept that, particularly from his leader.

I hope that in the future the member will listen to what his leader has to say from time to time. Even though he only wants to do his own thing, he does make some very good comments and I think some things that will change the will of this government to accept a reasonable amendment, as he has asked me to do and I am prepared to do.

Mr. Pollock: I listened quite carefully to the member for Sault Ste. Marie as he walked us through the bill and stated that the only person in Ontario who has the authority to sell water to the United States is going to be the Minister of Natural Resources.

In thinking about that, we all know the political realities of this place. In 1991, there could well be another election and the next Minister of Natural Resources could be a Conservative.

I would just like to know if there is any Liberal member here who would choose to stand in his place and say he would be comfortable with this bill knowing what is in it. They can go ahead.

1610

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the fact that the minister is going to accept our amendment to this bill. The minister knows that one amendment does not solve the problems of this bill, because as I indicated, there are various sections of this bill that give the minister loophole after loophole in terms of the licensing and selling of water out of the province. As I said, this is not a bill that requires one simple amendment; it requires amendments to ensure that it actually does prohibit the export of water out of the province.

We have a number of amendments. There are a number of sections which would be totally irrelevant if the sale of water out of the province of Ontario were prohibited. We have a number of deletions, and I am sure the minister is going to accept them all, now that he has finally accepted the principle that our objective is to stop the diversion of water out of the province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Polsinelli): Are there any further members wishing to participate in the debate?

Mr. B. Rae: I want to participate in this debate because I did take some interest in it when it was first proposed by the government in June, and again as we were discussing it in the fall of last year.

I do not think we should be under any illusions as to what we are discussing here. We are discussing the consequences of a goof on the part of the government. It was a goof born of an effort to gain political credibility by stepping in where it was perceived the feds were not stepping in.

The original idea behind the law must have been to make sure, according to the minister, that Ontario got the credit for stopping the export of water from Canada to the United States. To quote the words the minister used when he introduced the bill in June: “This government is concerned that the proposed free trade agreement places control of Canada’s water supply at risk. We believe the failure to expressly exclude water exports from the agreement opens a door we think ought to be closed.” That was the original purpose of the legislation when the minister got up on his feet in June 1988.

When we pointed out to the government in the fall that in fact that was not what this bill was all about, the minister went outside this place and said: “But this is not what the bill is intended to do. What this bill is all about is the regulation of transfers within Canada.”

I am always an admirer of improvisation.

Mr. Fleet: We have noticed.

Mr. B. Rae: As the member for High Park-Swansea says, he has noticed. I have had to do that on occasion myself, on some days better than others, like everyone else.

I ask myself the question, why would the government not simply withdraw this bill? Why are we having this discussion? The minister then says that if the amendments proposed by the New Democratic Party were put forward -- that is to say, there should be no exports of water from Ontario, period -- he is suggesting things that Ontario has been doing since 1913 would then become impossible, to which I reply, “If you’ve been able to transfer water out of Shoal Lake to Winnipeg without this legislation, why do you need this legislation?”

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: To deal with the whole issue of water transfers from basin to basin into the United States of America, anywhere.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister says “into the United States of America,” but then he does not have jurisdiction over water that goes into the USA, first of all. Second of all, if he wants –

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Oh, I might; we might.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister says he might. I would offer him this small piece of constitutional advice. I do not think a whole lot, but let me just say to the minister, if that is –

Mr. Fleet: I do not think a whole lot either, Bob, but that is okay.

Mr. B. Rae: But I do not pretend that I do. That is the difference.

I think it is worth at least pointing out that there is something moderately unnecessary about this entire discussion.

The second point I want to make to the minister is this. My colleagues have pointed this out in their discussion, and I think it has been a very useful discussion, in particular on the GRAND Canal scheme. I think the difference between us and the minister is this: We are not satisfied with a process of purely ministerial regulation. What we are saying is that in the event of new requests for Ontario’s water -- if there should be such requests and if they should come -- it is our judgement that those discussions are ones which we should have on a case-by-case basis and that the minister should be coming back to the House and looking to the House for authorization and looking to the House for discussion, rather than simply going off and doing it on his own.

I do not want to take up a great deal of time in this discussion. I just want to point out the extent to which the government’s position has shifted in terms of the purpose and thrust of this bill. I am not for a moment challenging the minister’s integrity. All I am saying is that I do not really readily comprehend -- and I have done my best -- why it is that if the minister says this is really intended to deal with the question of transfers within Canada, and we have in fact already been transferring water within Canada without this legislation, it begs the question: Why do we need this particular legislation at this time?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As I said before, the sole purpose of this legislation was, so that we could protect, to the degree that this Legislature can, the transfer of water out of our basins and into the USA. The fact that there are other transfers within the province that are legitimate transfers, and transfers to other provinces that are legitimate, as is the one from Shoal Lake to the city of Winnipeg, all of those things make it important to put in some form of legislation so we can control them where it needs to be controlled.

In the first instance, when it was pointed out that there was really no direct way in the bill of saying there should be no transfers outside Canada, I immediately agreed with the Leader of the Opposition. I found no cause to let him know that I had any other purpose in putting this bill but to protect a very valuable resource.

Now, having said that, I agreed to put into the bill an amendment that would serve the purpose that he asked for. I thought that was just being kind of co-operative in a way that would take into account the feelings of a person who had deep feelings about this export of our water.

I do not know why the third party has difficulty with this, except that the federal government -- and, you know, it moved Bill C-130 for some very good reason: It knew that the free trade agreement did not protect our water. It moved such a bill and put it on the floor to be debated. It has not seen fit to put that bill back. What we are doing here is continuing a bill that was on the floor. There seems to be no reason except to do what I am doing as an initiative to make the bill acceptable to the parties on the other side.

I do not expect that much comfort from the Conservatives, because they are not willing to agree that the water is threatened by the free trade agreement. I would hope that the official opposition would in fact support it with the amendment I propose to protect that aspect that they were concerned about, because that is the purpose of the bill and my purpose from day one: to protect this resource.

Mr. Pollock: I would like to answer the minister. Why we have a problem with it is that the water in Ontario has been protected ever since 1981 or 1982. It has nothing to do with the free trade agreement. It has been protected ever since 1982. Mr. Davis signed a historic agreement with the governors of the six states bordering Ontario so there is an agreement in place. So why are we bothering with all this foolishness of this particular bill and giving one person, the Minister of Natural Resources, the authority to sell water? He should not have that authority.

1620

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We’re not going to sell water.

Mr. Pollock: The minister has the authority to do it, or a Minister of Natural Resources has authority to do it. That is what is in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I read the amendment to you. You can’t export water to the United States.

Mr. Pollock: That legislation has been in place ever since 1982.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any further questions or comments? The honourable Leader of the Opposition has two minutes to reply. No reply? Are there any members wishing to participate in the debate? Minister, would you like to reply?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course, this has been an interesting debate and I have listened to many members discussing the bill. It appears that all three parties agree on one essential point of the proposed act. We all agree that Ontario should not export its precious water resources outside Canada. That is why I proposed an amendment to the Water Transfer Control Act which clearly states that I, as the Minister of Natural Resources, will not approve any further transfer of water to a place outside Canada. This government is committed to protecting Ontario’s precious water resources from export anywhere outside of Canada.

One of the reasons we felt it necessary to seek this protection for Ontario’s water supply is because of the free trade agreement the federal government has signed with the United States. I have said before that the free trade agreement places control of Canada’s water supply at risk. This government feels that under the free trade agreement water can be considered goods. Many people agree with that position. Therefore, water is a commodity we feel could be exported under the free trade agreement. I disagree with some members opposite who have argued that the federal government has adequately ensured that water will not be treated as goods.

The members opposite are, of course, entitled to their opinion, but I feel that the federal government does not give us that kind of protection. Witness the federal government’s introduction of Bill C-156, the Canada Water Preservation Act. Bill C-156 received first reading in August 1988 but died when the federal election was called. The government had plenty of time to reintroduce that bill, which would comfort some people by indicating that the federal government does agree that water is at risk. It has not seen fit to do so.

In introducing Bill 175, the Water Transfer Control Act, we are clearly asserting Ontario’s control of water within our provincial boundaries. However, the purpose of the bill is not simply to address the issue of free trade and exports outside Canada. There are other important questions to be addressed by the bill.

The Ontario government must be able to control water transfers within Ontario and from Ontario to another province by having the power to prohibit or approve those transfers. There have been suggestions that we should prohibit all transfers, not just exports outside Canada. I think the leader of the official opposition has already, in a sense, admitted that the transfer to Winnipeg from Shoal Lake in western Ontario is most appropriate, and that when we do it for the benefit of another province it certainly is something we should always consider.

These suggestions ignore this government’s responsibility to our citizens and to our fellow Canadians. I have mentioned before that since 1913 Ontario has granted the city of Winnipeg approval to take drinking water from Shoal Lake. If we were to adopt the suggestions of some members that we prohibit all transfers we would not, in fact, be able to continue to assist the city of Winnipeg. If we were to prohibit all transfers, as some members opposite have suggested, then we would not be able to consider water transfers within the province so that water resources in one area of Ontario could be used to assist another area at a time of need.

This government has no intention of putting itself into a position where it cannot even consider offering assistance to its own citizens in other parts of Canada. We have ample evidence of the need to keep our options open when we examine the kind of weather we had this past summer. The dry, hot summer caused severe shortages of water in some parts of the province. Some scientists are predicting significant changes in our climate will continue. If they are correct, the drought we saw last summer may very well continue.

We will need to be able to consider transferring water within the province to battle severe drought and maintain economic activity. Bill 175 gives us just this flexibility. Bill 175 also gives us the control we need to ensure that any water transfers within Ontario or from Ontario to another province are environmentally sound and in the public interest. Proper planning of any proposed water transfer will be required.

This bill clearly provides the province with the ability to prohibit any water transfer that may be detrimental to ensuring a secure water supply for Ontario.

I want to speak briefly to a concern raised by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). He has indicated that he feels the bill does not protect aboriginal people. That was an element I want to assure him we have a concern about. It relates to the rights of the native people, and their rights and the rights of all Ontarians are what this bill is all about.

I also want to briefly address a concern raised about the bill’s definition of water. I am moving an amendment that will clearly indicate that only bottled water for human consumption is exempt from Bill 175. All other transfers are covered by this bill.

The intent of Bill 175 is to ensure that there is a secure supply of water for the social, environmental and economic wellbeing of all people in the province now and into the future.

The Water Transfer Control Act and the amendments I am proposing will give Ontario the power to assert control over its precious water resources. I urge members to support the bill on second reading, and I am looking forward to debating and discussing the amendments.

The Acting Speaker: Hon. Mr. Kerrio has moved second reading of Bill 175.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: May I have permission to move down to the front desk with some of our people?

The Acting Speaker: When we get into committee.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: All right.

House in committee of the whole.

1630

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL ACT

Consideration of Bill 175, An Act respecting transfers of Water.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments which members would like to address? If so, to which sections of the bill?

Mr. Wildman: I have tabled with the clerk a number of amendments to sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17 and 18. The reason for this is, obviously, that the whole bill needs to be rewritten.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the minister have any amendments to propose? If so, to which sections?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe you have a copy of all the amendments we are moving now, do you not?

The Deputy Chairman: For the record, could you indicate the sections to which you have amendments to propose?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have an amendment to section 1.

The Deputy Chairman: Section 1. Any others?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Section 1, subsection 1(2), subsection 6(2), section 9 and section 17.

The Deputy Chairman: We are dealing first with the member for Algoma’s first amendment.

Section 1:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by deleting the definitions of “approval,” “prescribed” and “regulations.”

Mr. Wildman: The reason for the amendment is to carry out the purpose of the bill, which is to ensure that there are no transfers of water out of Ontario. By including “approval,” it is explicit, not just implicit, that the bill allows for the minister to give approval for transfers of water, which is, in our view, contrary to the purpose of the bill.

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

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by deleting, in the definition of “inspector,” the words “section 10” and substituting therefor the words “section 4.”

Mr. Wildman: The reason for this amendment relates to other amendments we have tabled further on. I do not know whether it is the wish of the House to deal with this now or to stand it down until we see what happens with the other sections. It is really just a change of number.

The Deputy Chairman: It is your motion and I will propose the motion for discussion.

Mr. Wildman: As I said, this is a change of number. We will be putting a number of other amendments to the bill that will strike out other sections of the bill, in which case we will have to change numbers. I really think it would be more sensible to stand this down until we have dealt with the other sections.

The Deputy Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent to stand down this amendment until we see the disposition of other amendments to be proposed?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Kerrio moves that the definition of “provincial drainage basin” in section 1 of the bill be struck out.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The reason it should be struck out is that we are going to address the definition later on in the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other comments? If not, I will put the question.

All those in favour of Mr. Kerrio’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Kerrio moves that the definition of “water” in section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“‘water’ means natural surface and ground water in liquid, gaseous or solid state, but does not include spring or mineral water bottled as a beverage for human consumption.”

Mr. Wildman: Are we going to debate this?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have no comments.

Mr. Wildman: Well, I do. I note the minister has left in the gaseous state, which is very appropriate for this place. I would really like to know what the significance is of changing the words “but does not include bottled or otherwise packaged spring water or mineral water” to the words “but does not include spring or mineral water bottled as a beverage for human consumption.”

What is the significance of putting in “bottled as a beverage for human consumption” as opposed to not having that in the previous draft? I would just like to have some explanation why that is necessary.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think it was a matter of clarification. I think there was just some question about the former definition. When we put this one in, there will now be a clear definition; there could be no way to misconstrue how we describe water. I cannot tell the honourable member anything more than that except that there could have been some way to misconstrue the other definition.

1640

Mr. Wildman: Certainly it was not the intention, I am sure, of the bill -- although considering the poor drafting it is hard to tell – to prohibit the sale outside Canada of bottled water, considering the market for mineral water in urban centres across North America, particularly when one considers the concerns many people have about the quality of tap water in some urban centres. There certainly is a market there and we would not want to prohibit the opportunity of entrepreneurs in this province for bottling our very pure water and exporting it into that large market.

We will support this amendment, but I suppose all one can say is that the wording is a little better now than it was before. As far as I can see, it means the same thing.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think I can add to that. I appreciate where the member is coming from in that concern, but we are going to talk about that later on in another clause when we are talking about prescribing by content size or type of container the amount that can be moved. I think we will address that in clause 17(i).

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other comments or questions? I will therefore put the question.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Kerrio moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) For the purpose 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 and the part of Ontario the water of which drains into any of them.

“2. The Ottawa River and the part of Ontario the water of which drains into it.

“3. The part of Ontario the water of which drains into the Nelson River.

“4. The part of Ontario the water of which drains into Hudson Bay or James Bay.”

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That might conveniently put at rest some of the concerns, I say to the member for Algoma, that his people have about that GRAND Canal scheme.

Mr. Wildman: I have some real problems with this. I am quite serious about this. I do not see any problems with paragraphs 2 and 3 under subsection 1(2), but paragraphs 1 and 4 do present some problems.

If one is talking about the Great Lakes basin, as in paragraph 1 -- Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Superior and the St. Lawrence River -- it seems to me we are really treading on very thin jurisdictional ground constitutionally here, because I think everyone recognizes with paragraph 1 -- certainly, Mr. Chairman, coming from Windsor, you would recognize it -- that these waters are under the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission.

The IJC, through treaty arrangement between Canada and the United States since the early part of the century, has been responsible for regulating water levels, water quality and water transfers in the Great Lakes basin. It is significant that when you are looking at the Great Lakes basin, for obvious reasons, Lake Michigan is not included since Lake Michigan is wholly a United States lake.

We know water is transferred out of Lake Michigan into the Chicago area and the Mississippi basin through regulation by the International Joint Commission. Obviously, draining water from Lake Michigan affects Lake Superior and Lake Huron.

It seems to me that as a provincial jurisdiction, we are on very thin ice when we start talking about regulating water in Lake Huron and Lake Superior, certainly, and I would suggest also in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, as it is under federal and international control through treaty between the United States and Canada. I wonder if this is a proper amendment to be placed before this assembly.

Paragraph 4 of the minister’s amendment adding subsection 1(2), defining the drainage basins, presents similar but perhaps less difficult problems in that I suspect our American friends might question whether Hudson Bay is wholly a Canadian lake. I do not know whether they would take the same position with James Bay -- I doubt it -- but I suspect they might question whether Hudson Bay is not international waters.

Personally, without having studied the whole question of the law of the sea, I would not support such an American view if it were put forward. I would say that Hudson Bay is in fact a Canadian body of water. Then one wonders if it is an Ontario body of water, because not only Ontario but Quebec, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories are included in the lands that share the shoreline of Hudson Bay. Of course, Quebec also shares the shoreline of James Bay.

Is it within our jurisdiction to take it upon ourselves to regulate Hudson Bay and James Bay waters? I do not know how we deal with this question. I really do raise questions about the Great Lakes water basin as it is already subject to international treaty and is under the control of the International Joint Commission.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I believe that in a sense the member for Algoma raised the question but answered it in the same breath. If there can be transfers from Lake Michigan that are out of our jurisdiction, what we are looking at from the international boundary, what lies within the boundary of Ontario, we feel we should incorporate in the description that those are waters we would not want to see impacted by some arrangement to transfer them out of that area where we feel we do have jurisdiction.

The reason we say the part of Ontario that drains into Hudson Bay or James Bay is that we have examined the areas we feel come under our jurisdiction. The waters of the bay do not, but the waters that drain into them do. I think that is about where we are with those two questions.

Mr. Wildman: I think the minister has answered my concerns with regard to paragraph 4, but I do not think he has answered my concerns with regard to paragraph 1. I reiterate that while I certainly recognize we as a provincial jurisdiction cannot regulate water levels or transfers of water out of Lake Michigan, as it is an American lake, the point still remains that the whole of the Great Lakes basin is under the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission.

1650

Mr. Sterling: I guess I have the same question. As I understand it, the government is trying to get over the problem in the act with regard to half of Lake Ontario, I assume, or half of Lake Erie, and claiming it has some control over half that water. Is that correct? Is that what the government is trying to do?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes. We own that.

Mr. Sterling: Does the minister think the government owns the water in Lake Ontario? The International Joint Commission does not agree with the minister, does it? Has the minister consulted with them on it? Has the International Joint Commission commented on this? I talked to the International Joint Commission about the original bill.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The International Joint Commission has control over water levels, no question about it. We confer and we agree with them on their jurisdiction. There are responsibilities of different levels of government and different ministries, as in our Ministry of the Environment, which has control over the quality of the water.

We feel we have control over the waters that are within the boundaries of Ontario when it relates to transfers. We do not think we have jurisdiction that controls the levels on the International Joint Commission scale, but we do think that if someone were going to make a major transfer out of a water body that rests within the boundary of Ontario, we would have every right to control it.

Mr. Sterling: The minister really believes that?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Certainly I believe it.

Mr. Sterling: The minister is saying that he is putting a sheet of glass or whatever down the centre of Lake Ontario and that he can stop the transfer of water out of there or that he can stop the transfer of water from the borders of our country going into Lake Michigan and then out the Chicago diversion. Is that what the minister is telling me?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No. What I am going to say to the member is that, as a lawyer, he would put down a sheet of glass and it would not hold up that much water. As a contractor, I would put up something more substantial if I had to do that control. I am not saying that at all.

What I am saying is that if there were an intrusion on areas within the bounds of the Great Lakes that rest within Ontario, we have every right to control the transfers from that part of the lake. I am not suggesting we can do anything on the American side. I am only saying that where the line is drawn and where we have the jurisdiction over that water, we can in fact decide if there should be any transfers.

We are saying in this bill we are not going to transfer any into the United States of America, for instance. We think we have the right to do that.

Mr. Wildman: I do not want to take the time from the member for Carleton, but I think we are both in agreement with the problem here. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe subsection 1(2), paragraph 1, to be out of order. It is not in order to be placed before us, and I would ask you to rule whether it is in order. I think this is unconstitutional.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: May I make another comment?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This is how it reads, and I will read it carefully: “For the purposes of this act, Ontario is divided into four provincial drainage basins as follows,” and it describes the four drainage basins. I do not think in this part of the bill that it is in any way unconstitutional. It is very clear. It just describes the basins more clearly than the original bill.

Mr. Sterling: Could I ask the minister –

The Deputy Chairman: On the point of order. You are attempting to assist me with respect to a point of order.

Mr. Sterling: No, I am not. I have no comment on that.

Mr. Fleet: Is the point of order whether the bill is in order or whether the bill is constitutional? Frankly, I do not understand clearly what the objection is about.

The Deputy Chairman: The point of order is to the effect that the proposed amendment is out of order by reason of its unconstitutionality. I will say in response that it is not the function of the chair to rule on the constitutionality or legality of any particular section proposed by way of amendment. Therefore, I will treat the amendment as in order. If there is no further discussion, I will put the question.

Mr. Sterling: Just a minute. I have discussion on the amendment.

Can the minister clarify for me? He divides Ontario into four drainage basins. When I read other sections, do the other sections refer to these four particular areas in terms of his control of the transfer of water, or do they refer to other ways of defining what water he is controlling?

For instance, section 4 reads: “The minister may approve a transfer of water out of a provincial drainage basin subject to such conditions and subject to the payment to the crown,” etc. Is that referring to one of these four areas?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We are just looking at redefining the basins so that they are specific.

Mr. Sterling: I think it is important. Is the minister in the position of trying to tell us that he is going to control the transfer of water out of the harbour at Toronto? Is that what he is trying to tell us, that he is going to control that? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, what we are talking about here is to describe in this bill the basins out of which we can control the transfers. If someone asks to transfer water from Toronto harbour into the USA, our bill says, “No way, you can’t do that.” If we were going to ask to transfer water from some part of that basin to a need within Ontario or another jurisdiction, that again would be something we could do. I do not think that is difficult to understand.

The answer to the member’s question is yes, we feel that whatever lies within the bounds of the area from the international division in Ontario, this bill will cover the transfer of those waters within those basins and those descriptions.

Mr. Sterling: If the minister takes this particular position, would it not then be arguable, on the part of New York state, for instance, on the other side of Lake Ontario to say, “We control the water in our half of the lake and therefore we can take a gallon of water out of our side of the lake”? Does the minister agree that they can do that?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Certainly. They can do that right now if they have the approval of the International Joint Commission. That is the function of the International Joint Commission, to control the water levels. Anyone who wants to take any major supply of water out of the basin, whether it be on the US side or on our side, certainly would have to comply with some kind of restriction. They did not divert the water through Chicago and into the Mississippi basin without approval from an international agreement.

I am only suggesting that when we talk about transfers of what water rests within the bounds of Ontario, that would be a decision that would be made by our province under this bill. If they attempted to make a major diversion on the US side, then that certainly would be the business of the International Joint Commission where it relates to water levels.

Mr. Sterling: Then what would be the minister’s function with regard to the taking of that water? Would he have any function at all?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Certainly. I think that if we were to go into a transfer of water where it impacts on the water levels, then there would have to be another involvement with other parties that have some say in that matter. We are doing this to have a description, so we know what bodies we are talking about. It would be at our discretion to be able to move to the benefit of Ontarians what lies strictly within the bounds of these basins and does not impact on international water levels.

Mr. Sterling: If the International Joint Commission said to New York state, “You can divert water over the objections of Ontario,” could the minister stop it?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I doubt that we could. Those international agreements are through the International Joint Commission and international agreements are to be made at that level.

Mr. Wildman: The comment that was just made by the minister points out the whole problem. The IJC has jurisdiction. If the IJC were to approve a water diversion out of any of the Great Lakes, out of the Great Lakes basin into the United States, the provincial government could do nothing. So why on earth are we even talking about it in this bill?

1700

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I see there is a bit of confusion here and I am doing my best to see if we cannot understand it. What I am saying is that if there was to be some kind of movement of water by us within Ontario and it was at a low level and it would impact somehow on water levels to the detriment of the international scene, there would be some question about whether we could do it. We would have to conform to agreements that are made internationally. If there were no impact on the water levels, we would then go forward.

Remember always in the back of this bill, and we have not come to that amendment yet, the main purpose of the bill is to protect us against transfers of water into the United States.

Mr. Harris: I would like to see if the minister can clarify something for us, just for the sake of whether realistically this bill means anything or not.

The minister would agree that if somebody wanted to remove water, from the US side or perhaps the Soviet Union from the north, that if it is its part of the boundary water -- and the minister seems to be only concerned about the US, which is typical of his government -- he would have no jurisdiction and this bill would not apply. It is defining the boundaries of the waters within Ontario, I think he said. This bill then is to protect us from ourselves.

Originally, in the bill, of course, it appeared as if the government wanted to do it. Now the amendment, I understand, will prohibit the minister from doing it because he is saying it is no longer for sale, as he indicated it was when he first introduced it. This is to protect us from Ontarians themselves. It is saying, “Here are the boundaries that fall within the jurisdiction of Ontario.” This bill will allow us to say to fellow Ontarians and to ourselves, “You can’t do this.” Is that what it is really saying?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I think the whole act is not for the purpose of putting us at a disadvantage. I cannot imagine how that came into the discussion.

I very carefully described the relationship between this bill and our will, first, not to allow water to go into the US out of our basin; and, second, to control transfers if they impact in a way that is not to the advantage of the people of Ontario. There are other elements that would impact on it, as the International Joint Commission and the international treaties would impact on this. If the Americans wanted to transfer water out of the basin, they certainly could not do it because of their own -- the state of Michigan cannot move more water out of Lake Michigan without approval from the International Joint Commission.

What we are saying is –

Mr. Harris: This bill isn’t to deal with that. This is to deal with –

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No. What we are saying is, everyone plays by that set of rules that relate to water levels. What we are saying is that we have jurisdiction. If there were going to be a major shift of water out of our basin into the United States, we could say no, even if it did not affect the water levels and the International Joint Commission might not object to it because it did not interfere with water levels. We are saying it cannot be taken out of our basin no matter what.

Mr. Harris: Let me try to clarify what it is we could do. If it is the US pulling it out, the IJC from US waters -- or let’s say it is a Soviet gallon of water because it falls within its boundaries, there we would rely on international agreements to say, “If you pull that gallon of water out there, it will suck a gallon of our water across your border.” That would be federal jurisdiction.

I wonder, as farfetched as it may seem -- because I am trying to understand whether this bill does anything -- would it be the minister’s contention that if he wanted to -- let’s say the IJC said, “We’ll approve,” and the federal government said, “We’ll approve of this transfer” or “We’ll allow Michigan to pull water out” -- this bill would give the minister the power, if he had the resources, to build a retaining wall along the whole wall of the boundaries of Ontario so that when they suck out their gallon, our gallon does not suck into their jurisdiction? Does it give the minister that authority?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I did not say that it did.

Mr. Harris: I am trying to indicate what it does give us, or trying to find out.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It clarifies what water we have control over; that’s what it does.

Mr. Sterling: Well, it does not, and that is the problem here. What the minister and his staff have done is take the arguments of the opposition, which came forward on November 10 when we pointed out in this Legislature what a farce this piece of legislation was because it did not deal with the Great Lakes, and now what they are trying to do is fudge the definition so that the people of Ontario will have some kind of idea that in fact the sham that is being perpetrated on them is not a sham.

Really what we have here is a worsening of the legislation, because what it is saying, or what the minister is allegedly saying, is that he is now including half of Lake Ontario, half of Lake St. Clair, half of Lake Erie, half of Lake Huron and half of Lake Superior, and he is giving the impression that somehow he has some power over the fact that the water can be drained out of those particular portions. He is giving it in terms of the definition when in fact he has no power whatsoever to do that. Therefore, I really find this particular amendment offensive.

Mr. Wildman: I am trying to understand how the minister thinks this will work. As I understand what he said, if the IJC were to approve the transfer of water, let’s say, for the sake of argument, from Lake Michigan into the Mississippi basin, but at the same time maintain the levels of Lake Superior and Lake Huron within the range that the IJC has agreed upon, so it could be approved by the IJC even though it meant water would be coming out of Lake Superior and Lake Huron, this government could say, “Sure, the level is being maintained within the range that the IJC approves, but we are against Lake Huron water or Lake Superior water going into Lake Michigan, so we will stop it even if the IJC has approved it.”

Is that what the minister is saying? If he is not saying that, I do not think any of us here, including the minister, knows what he is saying.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do absolutely know what I am saying. The member has drawn his kind of scenario that is not appropriate to the bill. What he is saying is that if the Americans wanted to draw water out of their side and the International Joint Commission said it was okay, we would still have good reason to argue on behalf of Canada about the appropriateness of that.

What I am saying is that if in fact there were an agreement that there could be someone take water from our side and the International Joint Commission did not oppose it, we could oppose it and say that water cannot be transferred to the United States.

We are not talking about shifting in the lake. We are talking about a major transfer of water with a pipeline or something. Because all the criteria of the International Joint Commission were met and it did not affect the water levels, we could have somebody come over here, tap our water on our side and pipe it into the US if we did not have this bill.

We feel now that water is in our jurisdiction. If the IJC said, “Yes, it’s not going to affect the shipping or anything else and the water levels,” and there is an okay by the IJC to take water from our side of the border, we could say no because of this bill. Otherwise, we cannot.

Mr. Wildman: I think I understand what the minister is saying now. He is saying that, in his interpretation, if some firm or some individual were to put in a pipeline on the north shore of Lake Huron that goes across the international boundary and shifts water into the United States, Ontario could say no. However, if that same individual or firm were to put in a pipeline on the south shore of Lake Huron and take the same water out of Lake Huron, of course we would have nothing to say about it.

1710

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I guess the member is right.

Mr. Wildman: So what on earth is he attempting to do? They are still lowering Lake Huron. They are still taking water out of Lake Huron, but it is okay if they take it from the American side but not if they take it from our side. That is what is so silly about this proposed amendment.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not think it is silly. The member is making a suggestion or a comment now that is silly, that we should attempt to control water transfers within the continental United States of America. We are saying we can only control what is taken out of Canadian water and Ontario water.

Mr. Wildman: But it is international water.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, not what is within our jurisdiction. This bill will control any export of that water and that is what we are here to do. As I said before, this does not necessarily have to come out of one of the Great Lakes, but for the same reason that the free trade agreement could agree that water was a good, they could take it from somewhere else in Ontario, an adjunct to one of the rivers or our waterways. The fact remains that we can control, by this bill, the water that lies within the territorial jurisdiction of Ontario.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there any other discussion? If not, I will put the motion.

Mr. Wildman: Can we split it up and vote by subsection?

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

Mr. Wildman: No.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Can we not vote on each item individually?

The Deputy Chairman: We have an amendment before us and the chair can entertain an amendment to the amendment if you so wish. I can take them seriatim starting with paragraph 1.

Mr. Wildman: Agreed.

The Deputy Chairman: Agreed?

Mr. Wildman: No; agreed that you do it that way.

The Deputy Chairman: All right. Dealing first with each of the four paragraphs.

Paragraph 1: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the paragraph carry?

All those in favour say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

Carried.

Is it the pleasure of the committee that paragraph 2 carry?

All those in favour say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

Carried.

Is it the pleasure of the committee that paragraph 3 carry?

Carried.

Paragraph 4: All those in favour say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

Carried.

Dealing now with the whole, is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any further amendments to section 1, apart from that amendment by the member for Algoma which we said we would stand down until all sections had been dealt with? There are no further amendments? Then we will move to section 2.

Section 2:

Mr. Wildman moves that section 2 of the bill be amended by deleting the words “without the written approval of the minister.”

Mr. Wildman: This, in our view, is the key section of the bill and it is our key amendment. It relates to subsection 16(1) as well, because it deals with the contradiction in the bill of what the principle of the bill purports to be; that is, that the minister could indeed approve the transfer of water outside the country when in fact he said the purpose of the bill was to prevent the transfer of water outside the country.

We just cannot accept that a bill written in a way to allow for transfers is somehow really a bill to prevent transfers. That is why we are removing the reference to approval by the minister.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to understand the argument why the minister needs the authority to approve of transfers. Is there some logic or reason behind that?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Why the minister needs approval for transfers?

Mr. Sterling: Authority to approve transfers.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Because we have other conditions where the transfer might be in order, we would want that ability, within the bounds of Ontario, with our sister provinces. I think we have clarified that now.

The Deputy Chairman: Further discussion?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 2 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those in favour will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3:

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment tabled to delete section 3. I recognize that you will probably rule this out of order.

We will be voting against section 3, because again, it allows for the approval of transfer of water out of the provincial drainage basin on the submission of plans, reports, studies and other information prescribed by and requested by, the minister. In other words, again, it is the opposite of the purpose of the bill. It allows for approval of transfer of water when the bill is supposed to prevent the transfer of water. I recognize you may rule it out of order, and I tell you now that we will be voting against the section.

The Deputy Chairman: The member is correct. An amendment to leave out a clause is not in order and the proper disposition is to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill.

We now have section 3. Are there any other amendments proposed to section 3?

Mr. Harris: No. I would like to speak to section 3, though. I would like to ask the minister how his amendment, subsection 6(2) –

Mr. Sterling: What section is that?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We are not there yet.

Mr. Sterling: I know, but what is that amendment that –

Mr. Harris: I have an amendment, government motion, subsection 6(2).

Mr. Sterling: What section is that?

Mr. Harris: Where does that come in?

Mr. Wildman: That is on section 6. We are on section 3.

1720

Mr. Harris: Yes. Just for the interest of the minister and so that we do not get caught up here, the reason I am bringing it up now is that section 3 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.”

If we carry that section, I am wondering whether the minister’s amendment will be allowed to be in order. I am trying to clarify that, because further on he has moved an amendment that will say, “Despite the trade agreement” -- and all that garbage that is irrelevant -- "or any law of Canada implementing the agreement” -- here is the operative part -- ”the minister shall refuse to give approval to a transfer of water out of a provincial drainage basin to a place outside Canada.”

This is the operative amendment here that says if somebody applies to the minister, he shall refuse. I guess I do not understand why, if he wants to carry this amendment further down saying somebody applies or submits some plans to him, if he passes this amendment -- of course, it is the amendment we have all been saying should be in the bill, and simply that is it and nothing else, but if he wants to pass this amendment when somebody applies or makes a request, this is his answer. If in fact this is what he is trying to move later on, he holds this up and he says: “There is no point applying. There is no point in spending thousands and thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars presenting a plan for this great diversion, because this bill further on says ‘I shall refuse.’”

I do not understand why section 3 needs to be part of the bill any longer.

Mr. Haggerty: In the minister’s opinion.

Mr. Harris: It is important we understand this. The member says something about “in the minister’s opinion.” I do not see anything about the minister’s opinion.

Mr. Haggerty: It is in the bill.

Mr. Harris: I will read section 3 to him just so --

Mr. Haggerty: It is in section 6.

Mr. Harris: Subsection 6(2) says that “the minister shall refuse to give approval to a transfer of water out of a provincial drainage basin to a place outside Canada.” There is no “in the minister’s opinion.” This is the amendment that was brought forward by the minister in response to the fact that the government’s bill really did not do anything and in fact was hastily or poorly drafted and/or the minister gave silly directions to the staff.

The minister has a section 3 that says when somebody applies he must present this comprehensive set of plans, must go out, etc. Further on in the bill, it says when somebody applies, the minister must refuse.

I guess I would be worried but if he wants section 3 in there -- the section 6 amendment he wants to move later, really without that amendment he is going to be very embarrassed with this bill because that is the crux of the bill now. We would spend more than we did on Sunday shopping if he did not have this amendment, because what he originally proposed was, “Sure, it’s all for sale and here are the rules.”

I suggest the minister drop and delete section 3 or join us in voting against it. That will take it out. That is not the nicest way to do it but that would work so that we can all get to subsection 6(2) which is the operative section. We told him for the last four months that is the only thing that makes sense.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is obvious the member does not understand the reason for it and I should explain it to him very carefully. Obviously, the member for Algoma does not either, so he should listen carefully so I do not have to tell him 25 times.

We have set in the bill and in the address here, which he was not privileged to and may be why he does not know what he is talking about. The fact of the matter is we have two very important elements of the bill. One, we do not want to transfer water from our basins to the United States, which is covered under subsection 6(2). Okay?

That having been said, what we are looking for when someone applies to us to transfer water from one basin to another within Ontario -- or, for instance, in the arrangement we have with Shoal Lake, to Winnipeg -- is that they then will have to tell us what they would do with any transfer. If we were to find out that transfer approval was going to have water find itself going to another jurisdiction we did not approve of, we would need section 3 to control the interchange of water from basin to basin within Ontario and where we might appropriately be able to give water to a sister province.

If they came in there and were requesting approval for shipping water to the US, we would say: “Look at subsection 6(2). Don’t even bother submitting.” But we have to be very careful. If they were to request an approval of transfer, we had better know where the water is going to go. That is the reason for those two.

Mr. Harris: The minister has clarified something. Just so I understand, what he is saying is that he is prepared to entertain the sale of Ontario water to a sister province. So to go ahead, if someone wants to transfer this water out of the provincial basin, he is prepared -- I did not say he would approve -- to entertain those proposals, but clearly and unequivocally, he is not prepared to propose that any other country -- if any other country asks, no way, but if another province asks –

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Now you’ve got it. I knew you were a quick learner.

Mr. Harris: No, it is fine. I am a provincial politician and quite frankly I am not going to vote against section 3. To me, as an Ontarian, if this bill is to protect Ontario’s interests, it does not make a lot of sense to me to say to the Americans, no way; Russia, no way; Europe, no way. I do not know how this is covered. If you suck out the Atlantic Ocean and that sucks it down the St. Lawrence and everything else, maybe there is something there too. I do not know. Maybe the government will build its dike up so that cannot happen.

But I will tell the minister that I do not have a strong desire, on behalf of the people of Ontario, to entertain the sale of Ontario water. The minister does. He says it is permitted within Canada, but if the water is eventually going to end up outside Canada, that is not permitted.

I understand what the minister is doing now. I did not believe water was for sale to other provinces, but now I understand that it is and he has clarified why he wants the two sections.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: You can work anything you try to work into a particular bill if you so choose. What I am saying, and I will say it as many times as it needs to be said, is that the bill is to protect our resource from going into the USA. That is the prime purpose of the bill.

Number two, if there is going to be water transferred to another jurisdiction, which is being done right now, there need to be some charges for costs. We should not expect that we would be supplying water for free to another jurisdiction. Would the member?

I am suggesting that could be, in a sense, just a matter of controlling that whole process of taking it from one basin to another. If it is going to do someone some good, then they are going to pay the charges for doing the transfers and those kinds of things. I am just putting the ability in there to do what is fair to protect the people in Ontario. Would the member not do that? Would he suggest that I should say we would transfer water anywhere in Canada free of charge? Is that the member’s suggestion?

I am protecting the people of Ontario to make sure the resource is protected, but also to have a will so that if a sister province requires some assistance, we are prepared to do that. I cannot find much wrong with that.

Mr. Sterling: In essence, what the minister is saying is that if the city of Montreal runs short of water, we are willing to transfer and sell our water to Montreal out of, let’s say, the Raisin River or the Rideau River or whatever, whereas if the city of Buffalo runs short of water and we have a surplus of water, he would not sell it to Buffalo. But basically, what he is saying is that our water is for sale.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to respond to that. It is obvious that the member and his federal counterparts are not prepared to say that water, Canadian water, Ontario water, is up for grabs. The member is prepared to say it is a good. Under the free trade agreement it could be traded. We are saying no way. We are saying that if there are other jurisdictions in Canada that require some help –

Mr. Sterling: Show me the clause where it says that in the free trade agreement.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: But in section 6, and read it carefully, it says:

“The minister shall refuse to give approval to a transfer of water out of a provincial drainage basin if, in the minister’s opinion, the transfer may be detrimental to ensuring a secure water supply for Ontario or Canada or any part thereof.”

Those decisions had to be made. I cannot believe that the member’s analogy makes any sense at all, because Quebec happens to have all kinds of fresh water which it is using for power development. Not only can it supply Montreal, but in all probability it can have the power and pumps to get it there.

1730

Mr. Harris: I would like to move on, but I cannot let the minister get up and, in answering the question that was put by the member for Carleton, start talking about the federal government or what is realistic or what is possible. I do not think that I need to defend the federal government. Clearly, it has said water is not for sale. However, let us not debate that.

What the member for Carleton said very clearly to the minister -- and we just want the minister to say, “Yes, that is our understanding of the bill,” or “No, it is not,” because we are trying to understand -- was that we have all kinds of water, there is no problem, we have more than we need, and if Montreal needs water, the minister would entertain, and this legislation would allow him to sell water to Montreal or to Winnipeg.

However, should Duluth, Minnesota, or should Buffalo or should an American city -- and we have all kinds of water, a surplus of water; we do not need it; it is there with everything else -- should they need some water because all their people are dying in the streets, there is no way we would sell water under those circumstances.

Mr. Sterling: We cannot.

Mr. Harris: He cannot do that. He cannot do it there, but it is for sale, under certain circumstances, to sister provinces or cities in the jurisdiction. Are we correct in that understanding?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I find that the debate sometimes –

Mr. McGuigan: Such a situation would never exist. You know it.

Mr. Harris: If this never exists, then what do we need this stupid bill for?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Why did the Conservative members’ government in Ottawa think it needed one -- a similar-type bill -- and let it die on the order paper? It was because they realized –

Mr. Harris: Because it had an election and everybody was misinterpreting, so it did the same thing. It said, “We will pass this just to make everybody happy.”

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not believe that. I believe it is more responsible than that. What we are talking about here -- and we have to continually go back to the initiative that we are trying to put in this legislation -- the fact of the matter is, we are protecting against water being used as a good under the free trade agreement. We happen to be totally opposed to that.

One of the members of the official opposition got up and talked about the GRAND Canal scheme and all those things. I want to tell the members something: We are totally opposed to that kind of use of the resource that originates in this province.

Mr. Harris: Is my understanding correct that we are not opposed to trading water as a good to Quebec or to Manitoba?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is not the point at all. The point of the matter is that the main purpose of the bill is as I described it. Under section 6, the first purpose of protecting that resource is for the people of Ontario. If, in fact, we can be helpful to other Canadian jurisdictions, we have said it many times. We are prepared to do that under the circumstances where it is appropriate.

Mr. Harris: Under those conditions, our water is for sale.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We also want to protect that water from being diverted somewhere. That is why there has to be a plan when they ask for our help.

Mr. Harris: But under those conditions, our water is for sale? Under the conditions you just described, to our sister provinces, Ontario water is for sale, right? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is what section 3 is all about.

Mr. Harris: Under all the conditions and circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member should sit through these bills. It was not long ago I said that we are there to be able to control it, depending on the costs. But nothing stops us from giving it to Winnipeg, as we do. That is not the point of the bill. The point of the bill is so that we can control the appropriateness of doing what is to be done, and the bill does not say there have to be charges.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Under your original bill, you were going to give it to the Americans.

Mr. Sterling: Under section 3 of the bill, which we are considering –

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Oh, no, never. No, I have said this many times. If you guys don’t want to believe it, it is one thing, but don’t confuse any purpose of the bill. You have done it too many times and it is not appropriate.

Mr. Sterling: I am having a little difficulty. It 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.”

The minister has said that is necessary if you are going to transfer water from one basin to another basin within Ontario, but he has also indicated that this specific clause allows the transfer or the sale of water from our province to another province should it need it and should it request it. It is just a matter of whom he is selling or transferring the water to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member is insisting I say “sell,” and I will not do that. The member is not going to sucker me into that.

Mr. Harris: Okay.

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Harris: I am not trying to sucker the minister. No, I am not.

The Deputy Chairman: Can I have some order here, please? Could you please shut off the microphone there, please?

Mr. Harris: You’ve been suckered.

Mr. Sterling: You’ve been suckered.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: You have.

The Deputy Chairman: This is not a private conversation. This is a public proceeding. Could you please address your remarks through the chair and be recognized before you speak. Now, the member for Nipissing has the floor.

Mr. Harris: I do not want to sucker the minister. He has been well enough suckered in a number of areas since he has been in his portfolio, and all from within.

Let me put it another way, because l think the minister was trying to tell me that it is possible for it to be for sale, but he is not going to say those words. The water is either potentially for sale or to be given away free. That seemed to be what the minister was trying to say. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am only going to say it once more. First, I said the purpose of the bill is to stop water from being shipped to the United States of America.

Second, we have to be very careful. When someone else in another provincial jurisdiction would require water, we have the option to be able to supply him. No charges that are suggested have to be made. If there are some costs involved, I would expect that the members over there, who keep screaming about not spending money and balancing the budget, would not want me to pay the cost of shipping the water somewhere else.

The fact is that, very clearly, the bill says that if we want to transfer from one basin to another, and it is for the purposes of some company to use it for cooling water or something, it would be expected to pay some kind of cost for doing that.

If it is another city that needs water badly during a time of drought when people are dying on the streets, as the member described it, which I refuse to do, we could then share that water with it without charge. I would not expect that we should not have the ability to decide where it is appropriate to do that, all the while taking into account that my prime responsibility, as minister, is to see that the water supply for Ontario and the citizens here is of paramount importance and number one priority.

The Deputy Chairman: I will put the question. Shall section 3 stand as part of the bill?

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4:

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the amendment I placed on the table because I know you will rule it out of order. It was to delete a section. I will just say now that we will probably be voting against this unless the minister can explain when it says, “The minister may approve a transfer of water out of a... drainage basin subject to such conditions and subject to the payment to the crown of such amount as the minister considers appropriate.”

First, can the minister assure us that this does not allow for transfers outside of Canada? Second, if that is the case, under what kinds of conditions would the minister approve transfers of waters within Canada?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think that has been the basis of the discussion that has just taken place. I want to give the member the assurance that under subsection 6(2), that water cannot in any way be sent directly, diverted or whatever.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: So before the new 6(2) it could have happened?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, I appreciate what the member is saying, and of course, I hope he will accept the fact that is going into the bill.

When we talk about conditions on the transfer -- the member should have read that before he got so involved with his questioning -- it actually says, “Subject to the payment to the crown of such amount as the minister considers appropriate,” which in some instances might be very little or nothing.

1740

Mr. Wildman: I am not trying to prolong this. I did ask the minister if he could tell us what kinds of conditions.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: What charge?

Mr. Wildman: No, not the charge. It says, “Subject to such conditions and subject to the payment to the crown of such amount as the minister considers appropriate.” I am not dealing with the payment question; I am dealing with the conditions. Under what kinds of conditions would the minister approve transfers within Canada?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would think, when we look at conditions, that there could be a number of conditions we might ask them to comply with in the transfer of water. It could be, “How long do you want it?” “How it is going to be transported?” and “What kind of circumstance will the water be used in?” Those kinds of things. I think the conditions we might ask for would be appropriate to the timing, those kinds of conditions that would be appropriate.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Can I now put the question?

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5:

Mr. Wildman: I withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the fact that you will rule it out of order anyway.

The Deputy Chairman: Discussion on section 5?

Shall section 5 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

I declare it carried.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6:

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Algoma has an amendment to section 6.

Mr. Wildman: Again, I am withdrawing this amendment, but I would like to ask a question of the minister with regard to section 6.

According to section 6, “The minister shall refuse to give approval to a transfer of water out of a provincial drainage basin if, in the minister’s opinion, the transfer may be detrimental to ensuring a secure water supply for Ontario or Canada or any part thereof.”

If this bill is really designed, as the minister says it is, to deal only with approvals within Canada, how could a transfer of water within Canada be detrimental to securing water supply for Canada?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Relating to a question that was previously raised, the transfer of water from within our area to out of it -- say, to another province -- this would be the only time I think we would have a legitimate reason to refuse a transfer out of the basin to accommodate a sister province, if that put into jeopardy the supply of water to the people in Ontario. Basically, I think that is the very prime purpose of that part of the bill.

Mr. Wildman: In that case, I would move an amendment to delete the words “or Canada” after the word “Ontario” in this section.

The Deputy Chairman: We require the amendment in writing.

Mr. Wildman: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I can accept that. I think I have made the case in many instances that we are here to make absolutely certain that the resource basically and fundamentally belongs to the people of Ontario. I do not think we would ever stand in the way of a reasonable request from any province that might look to our help but I think, on the basis of what the member for Algoma has described, we have to ensure a secure water supply for Ontario as a basic principle.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that section 6 of the bill be amended by deleting the words “or Canada” after the word “Ontario.”

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Still dealing with section 6, there is a government amendment.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes. I guess it took us a while to get here, but I think this may be the most important and significant part of the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Kerrio moves that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) Despite the trade agreement signed on the second day of January, 1988, by the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America or any law of Canada implementing the agreement, the minister shall refuse to give approval to a transfer of water out of a provincial drainage basin to a place outside Canada.”

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think that part of the bill is self-explanatory and I will leave it to the members interested to make comments.

Mr. Wildman: This amendment basically says what the minister all along has claimed the bill says. Frankly, I think it is unfortunate that it did not just say this straightforwardly without all the other additional paraphernalia. What this amendment does is to try to challenge any law passed by Canada or agreement between Canada and the United States which would transfer water from Ontario to the United States.

It is interesting, though, that this amendment does not deal with transfers of water into some other jurisdiction, perhaps through the United States. I wonder why it does not do that, but maybe that is covered by the amendment as it stands. If we are trying to prevent the export of water outside of Canada, why would we not also try to ensure that there were not transfers, for instance, to Mexico via the US?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think that most people would accept the fact that the way it is written, the last part of sentence, “the minister shall refuse to give approval to a transfer of water out of a provincial drainage basin to a place outside Canada,” should pretty well cover the concern the member for Algoma has.

Mr. Sterling: Can the minister answer a question for me? If the city of Rochester and the city of Buffalo wanted to take some water out of one of our Great Lakes, does he think they are going to ask him for his approval?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No.

Mr. Sterling: Could the minister then tell me under what circumstances any American state, jurisdiction or municipality would ever ask him for his approval for water?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: If they wanted to take it from our jurisdiction. I thought we went through all this.

Mr. Sterling: And where would they be taking it from in our jurisdiction? Where would it be applicable? I mean, this points to the whole farce of this legislation. The fact of the matter is that any state or municipality that wanted to take water from our borders of Ontario would not be asking this minister for his approval because the minister has nothing to do with it. Therefore, we have a bill which does nothing, which is a joke and which, with this amendment, does not even mean anything.

1750

The Deputy Chairman: Minister?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member for Algoma can go ahead.

Mr. Wildman: Okay. I think the point the member for Carleton is making is that if some American city on the south side of one of the Great Lakes were to take water from the lake, inevitably that means water from the Ontario side of the international boundary is going to move over to the American side of the international boundary, unless we do as the member for Nipissing suggested and build some sort of retaining wall all along the international boundary through the Great Lakes, which would be an enormous undertaking and certainly would make a lot of work in this jurisdiction.

I think it would play havoc with lake navigation, though. I do not think it would be too conducive to the use of the seaway in the future. Perhaps we could navigate around the wall within the Great Lakes, but how on earth would we ever navigate around such a retaining wall in the St. Lawrence, St. Clair or St. Marys rivers?

The Deputy Chairman: Is there any other discussion? The minister.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member for Nipissing can go ahead. I will respond to everyone.

Mr. Harris: I just want to ask the minister so that I will be clear about the awesome power this bill gives him, and I would like to use the example of the Americans. Let’s take Rochester. My geography on the United States side is not very good.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is a town on Lake Ontario on the US side, about the centre, a little bit removed from the lake.

Mr. Harris: Yes, but if Rochester, for example, wanted to take water or needed some water from the Great Lakes for whatever reason, this bill would prohibit it from building, say, an intake pipe all the way across its water and then into our part of the water. They could not do that without the minister’s permission.

So that we are aware of the awesome power this bill gives him, can the minister think of any circumstance where they would want to build this pipeline over, under or around all of their water? The reason I mentioned geography is I do not know how many miles they would have to go to get through all of their water before they could get to Ontario water. But can he think of any reason why the city would want to spend the extra millions or billions to build the pipeline that far across all its water, which it could take anyway, to get into our water? If the minister can think of a circumstance like that which is possible anywhere, then his bill might mean something.

Mr. McGuigan: They’re going to get clean water.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: My fellow legislator has come up with an excellent answer, and I think it is very appropriate. In some cases it might be to get better water.

I think in terms of some of the very basics of hydrology, where you would in fact find it more appropriate to take water from a higher place to be able to get it to the place that you need it cheaper, because the access point might be to your advantage to do that. Instead of pumping, you could supply it by gravity. If an American company came over here and found a supply that was very advantageous that it could just –

Mr. Sterling: That is what you should have done and embarrassed them.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member can talk about it, and we go right back to the original argument: Use it as a good to be traded in any way they see fit, which the federal government is prepared to allow. They decided they would put a bill in so that it could not happen. Then when the election came and went, they dropped it and let it die on the order paper.

We never, ever dropped this bill. Everybody said: “What are you doing back here again? The election is over. You don’t need it any more.” Do they not realize that we need it more than ever now that the free trade agreement has passed and the federal government is allowing water to be traded as a good? The thing that we can do to stop that should be done here with all of the powers that we have. Sure, there are other jurisdictions, the International Joint Commission, other people involved. We are doing everything we can as a government to protect a very important resource.

I feel that down deep the members think it is appropriate that we do that. I do not know for what reasons they might make the kind of observations that we are not doing everything that can be done under the circumstances. Indeed, we are doing something that will protect the water supply for Ontarians.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As a Metropolitan Toronto member, I am just tantalized by the nuances that are within this. I want to be clear on this. The minister can now stop, through this particular amendment -- referring to the basins included in paragraph 1, which is the Great Lakes themselves including Lake Ontario -- the Americans from building a pipeline to the foot of the Humber River or the Don River and taking any of that water across to the American side, That is what the minister can do, but he cannot stop them from taking the water out from a higher level on the other side of the lake at the Buffalo harbour. Have I followed this?

The Deputy Chairman: Shall the amendment stand as part of the bill?

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 6, as amended, stand as part of the bill?

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7:

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 7 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour of section 7 remaining part of the bill will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

I declare the section carried.

Section 7 agreed to.

Section 8:

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 8 stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Wildman: I would think for the same reasons as expressed in section 6, we should delete the words “or Canada” from section 8.

The Deputy Chairman: We will need the motion to amend in writing.

Mr. Wildman moves that section 8 of the bill be amended by deleting the words “or Canada.” Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 8, as amended, stand as part of the bill?

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Section 9:

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 9 stand as part of the bill?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Because of other arrangements, I move that section 9 of the bill be struck out.

The Deputy Chairman: That is another amendment. As the others were previously, it is out of order. The proper way of dealing with an amendment to leave out a clause is to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill.

Shall section 9 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

I declare the motion lost.

Motion negatived.

1800

Sections 10 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 17:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Kerrio moves that section 17 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

“(i) prescribing, by content, size or type of container, or any other characteristic, what is or is not considered to be spring or mineral water bottled as a beverage for human consumption for the purpose of the definition of water.”

Mr. Harris: Sorry. I want to finish this today, but what does that mean? Does that mean the minister can make the decision on what container size can be sold?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: What I am saying is that someone cannot call a tank car a bottle of water. We have to make certain we can control what containers are used for movement, so that they do not abuse this bill.

Mr. Harris: I understand that. Let’s say a fire truck full of water was going to go across the border to assist a sister community in the United States. Under this bill, the minister has no power to permit that, because it “shall” not be exported. My concern is presumably that would be illegal unless the minister ruled that particular container size is permissible, because it is not, we argued, to sell or give away, but we cannot even give that away. I have that concern, that the minister does not get himself into something he does not want.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, deciding that we should have jurisdiction over container size is only to make certain that there are no abuses of the bill. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to put in the bill, because there are always ways of circumventing a bill and abusing the whole process that we are going through here if you do not control what obviously could be used to our disadvantage.

Mr. Harris: Since this will be done in regulation and we will have no control over what the minister does in regulation, does he have some suggestion of the size of container he is going to rule “shall” not cross this border under any circumstances? It is not “may.” The minister could help a sister province, as we understand it, but his bill clearly says that, whether we have surplus upon surplus, whatever we have he cannot allow a container of water of a certain size to leave this jurisdiction -- presumably he is going to set a regulation.

I suppose that in the example maybe they would be in conflict with the minister’s bill and he would say: “Go ahead, put the fire out. I won’t bring in the $500,000 penalty.” I want to be clear that by describing the size of a container he does not get himself into a situation that does not allow him to do many things. I am sure even his government would want to be able to assist those nasty Americans.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I will not accept that description of our friends to the south, because I live at a border city and I happen to think those are very fine neighbours. We would do many things where we make certain we maintain the sovereignty of our country and are Canadians first; I do not want the Americans, as neighbours, moving into my house to tell me how to function, but there is a great deal of difference between that and the member trying to describe us as in some way being anti-American, that is not the case.

The fact of the matter here is that we are, by describing content, size or type of container, talking about an absolute assurance that there will not be abuses of the bill. It is as simple as that.

The Deputy Chairman: Can I now put the question?

All those in favour of Hon. Mr. Kerrio’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of section 17, as amended, will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.

Section 1:

The Deputy Chairman: We now must deal with the deferred amendment to section 1 by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman).

Mr. Wildman: In the light of what has happened since I withdraw the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 1, as amended, stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to,

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Harris: Again, I do not want to be provocative, but I have one more question before we report the bill. It deals with section 8, which I was kind of tied upon, and I appreciate that it was passed. But as we report I just want to understand that this bill, with section 8 in it, says that if the minister has given approval and if he is of the opinion that the transfer may be -- I would assume a sister province, for example, or a company within Ontario could have been given approval to remove water on whatever basis, perhaps a power company to generate its power or a sister province for diversion for its water supply -- it would only be done if there was a surplus supply, I would presume.

If all that is done and perhaps millions, even billions of dollars have been spent and decisions made on the basis that the community or company can rely on that resource and that transfer has gone on for 10 years, if in the minister’s opinion it is now detrimental to Ontario’s interest, under section 8 he has no choice, he shall revoke that licence.

I would ask the minister to think of the circumstances under which it might happen. Would any company or province ever enter into an agreement with him which would be contingent on that, built on that reliance; or spend all that money to build that plant if tomorrow or the next day he can say, “Right now that’s detrimental to ensuring our water supply”?

Once he has said that he has no choice but to break that contract or break that agreement, and I would suggest be liable to perhaps a substantial suit. Is it clear that this is the power he wants? If he is comfortable with that, fine; I might not be.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I find that a sort of strange contradiction. The member was running at me to talk about transfers to other jurisdictions and charges and things like that; now he wants to get some comfort that if somebody from out of our jurisdiction invests a lot of money in a transfer that somehow we should feel compelled, as the federal government decided when it guaranteed western gas to the United States of America if there is a shortage, I guess that is what he is talking about.

We have certain situations where Ontario Hydro supplies power for particular uses, where the people were told initially -- We will go right back now to talking about the kind of submission that would have to be made to give permission for the transfer in the first place. We would say: “Look, this is not a guarantee. If you decide to spend the money, that is your initiative.” But as far as we are concerned, the first responsibility is to assure Ontarians a secure supply, and I would think under the circumstances the member described they would be well advised well ahead of time that such could be the case.

I do not think we would do anything that would impact on some exchange from a water basin on that basis. I think we would be very careful about that in the original request.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I have a plane to catch, I would draw your attention to the clock.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week. On Monday, February 13, we will continue with the adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill 147, the Independent Health Facilities Act.

On Tuesday, February 14, we will deal with the second readings of Bills 149, 187, 203, 169, 192, 197, 134, 135, 128, and I am also going to include Bill 194 simply because we did not get to it today; all of that, of course, as time permits.

On Wednesday, February 15, we will consider the nonconfidence motion standing in the name of the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae).

On Thursday, February 16, in the morning we will deal with private member’s business, ballot items 63 and 64, and in the afternoon we will be dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Housing.

The House adjourned at 6:13 p.m.

9 février 1989