Journal des débats 1986-juin-25 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of an order in council deleting the name of the Honourable Elinor Caplan and substituting in lieu thereof the Honourable James Bradley, Minister of the Environment.

Mr. McClellan: Is that for the board? For what?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. In regard to the membership of the Board of Internal Economy.

ANNUAL REPORT, OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Speaker: I also wish to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Ombudsman of Ontario for 1985-86. The members will find copies in their postal boxes.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Pierce: I want to bring to this government's attention the high cost of travelling through northern Ontario. I believe travellers from eastern Canada and the eastern United States who intend to visit Expo this summer will travel through the US rather than through northern Ontario.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) announced on June 16 that his government intends to spend $1 million this year to attract tourists into northern Ontario with a marketing ad campaign. The thrust of this campaign is to be directed at people in eastern Ontario. Does the minister really believe this ad campaign is going to encourage people to visit and travel through the north when they can travel almost twice as far in the US on the same amount of money that they would have to spend on gas in northern Ontario?

My father just recently drove from Fort Frances to Toronto. I mention this because he did not drive through Ontario; he drove via the US for $73. By using figures provided by the government's north-south gasoline pricing study, the same trip through northern Ontario would have cost my father $170.

Why does this government do everything but the obvious? The high cost of travelling through northern Ontario for families visiting Expo will discourage them from using the northern route. If the north is to benefit from the extra tourists travelling to Expo this summer, the cost of gas must be lowered now.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Dofasco has been exempted from the statutory requirement to establish joint health and safety committees in its plant. If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) was serious about health and safety, he would not allow a company of that size to have this option. Let us see the application, with the grounds for such an exemption.

The United Steelworker of America at Stelco presented to our task force injury statistics showing that for the past two years accidents at Dofasco are occurring at a rate 80 per cent higher than at Stelco. Local 1005 is frequently called by Dofasco workers to represent them in matters pertaining to health and safety. For example, the local is asked for help with Workers' Compensation Board cases and at coroners' inquests.

In the absence of a health and safety committee or a union, what proof does the minister have that the interests of unorganized workers at Dofasco are being protected from the hazards of the work place and the threat of reprisals? In the past three years there have been no fatalities at Stelco, while at Dofasco there have been four.

It is interesting to note that in the past three years, lost-time accidents at Dofasco are much higher than at Stelco. For example, in 1985 there were 850 lost-time accidents at Dofasco and only 455 at Stelco. It is time the minister looked into this situation to ensure that a proper health and safety committee is in place to protect the workers.

BASEBALL GAME

Mr. Callahan: I rise on this occasion to recognize a very significant event that took place on June 18, 1986. Unfortunately, this historic event could not be recorded until this time due to the important bills that were before the House. The occasion took place about eight o'clock in the evening at the De La Salle ball field. The courageous Liberal caucus met with the 14th-place press gallery team and soundly defeated it 24 to nine in a contest that was represented by a single pitcher throughout and there was no necessity whatsoever to go to the bullpen. We enjoyed it, and the trophy that was turned over to us on that occasion will no doubt remain in the caucus gallery for ever.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Andrewes: In its haste to ban extra billing, the government has allowed an important health care service in Ontario to get lost in the shuffle, to quote a member of the staff of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). The Ontario Dental Association, failing to get a response from the minister over several months, has advised the public by way of an advertisement in major newspapers that needed dental surgical procedures will not be undertaken in Ontario hospitals. This means that patients requiring services under the Ontario health insurance plan must either do without these services or seek them elsewhere.

This question was raised with the Minister of Health by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) as far back as January 31. The minister responded then, "We are involved in negotiating these agreements with various associations." Negotiations pursued with diligence and in good faith by the minister would surely have prevented this situation that exists today. Ontario residents deserve leadership from this government and this minister. This government's achievements in health care inaccessibility are noted by many concerned citizens of the province.

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

Ms. Gigantes: Even before the withdrawal of doctors' services, the problem of access to abortion service was an increasingly serious one. In the last year, access to abortion service in Ontario has become more restricted; quite the opposite to what the Liberals had promised in last year's election.

In the last few weeks we have seen a totally intolerable situation develop. Some therapeutic abortion committees have resigned, while some are simply not meeting. In hospitals where committees have approved abortions, doctors have cancelled appointments and in many cases they are referring patients to doctors at two freestanding clinics. At the same time, the two clinics that continue providing abortion service are unable to arrange for their patients to get Ontario health insurance plan coverage.

Women who cannot get access to abortions in public hospitals cannot get OHIP coverage for a health service they desperately need. Meanwhile, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and minister irresponsible about women's issues mutters darkly about illegal clinics and possible prosecutions.

The government must change its course. It must adopt the position of successive governments in Quebec and recognize that the existing law concerning abortion service is unacceptable and unenforceable. It is time to recognize the important role of freestanding clinics, provide OHIP coverage for patients of those clinics and put an end to punishing women who need abortion service.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Cousens: The problem with the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto is reaching a point where, if the negotiations that today are under the auspices and leadership of the mediator do not proceed favourably, if the matter is not resolved and if we do not have the staff of the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto back at work, the problem will reach crisis proportions.

The situation now is such that staff within the Ministry of Community and Social Services say there are no problems. Press aides of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) say there are no problems. I venture to say he is not listening to the people, the staff or the management which is trying to man the different centres around Metropolitan Toronto.

Unless action is taken in the next 24 hours, I believe we will reach a proportion of problems that we, in this section of the opposition, will be forced to try to escalate and raise the attention of the whole province on this issue, because the minister is closing his eyes and mind to the problems that now exist. I beseech him to begin to be aware of it, to acknowledge that there is a problem and, while there is still time, to do something about it.

TUITION FEES

Mr. Allen: On Friday, the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) announced that as of May 1, 1987, his ministry will eliminate tuition-related ancillary fees for students in Ontario's universities.

This was a remarkable performance, because those students have been paying an average of $250 in excess of their normal tuition fees in recent years. However, at the same time, the announcement rather neatly legalized at least 11 of those fees and offered the universities the discretionary power to add five per cent to the current fee level. The end result is that the students will pay the same amount and the minister looks as though he is doing something. That is a remarkable accomplishment but it is not unprecedented in the realm of politics.

Will the minister not take another look at this, since it will not go into effect for a number of months, and give us a better plan than he has come up with to deal with those fee problems?

2:13 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yesterday, in this House, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) made very serious allegations of conflict of interest against the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine). It is alleged by the member for Sarnia that the minister now holds shares of Golden Tiger Mining Exploration and that he has failed to disclose his share ownership in the disclosure filing made with the Clerk of the House.

I have spoken with the minister. He has advised me that the disclosure statement filed with the Clerk of the House on January 21, 1986, is accurate. He has further told me that, prior to that filing, following the advice of his lawyers, he dealt with his assets in accordance with the conflict-of-interest guidelines.

He has advised me that prior to June 26, 1985, he owned two lots of Golden Tiger shares. The first lot, 45,354 shares, was held by the stockbrokerage firm of Osler, Wills Bickle for safekeeping. This lot includes the 18,888 shares referred to yesterday by the official opposition. These 45,354 shares were, in accordance with the minister's instructions and on the advice of his lawyers, sold over the period of December 10, 11 and 12, 1985. The fact of the sale of the 18,888 shares was subsequently registered in the share register of Golden Tiger on March 3, 1986, by the transfer agent, Guaranty Trust.

The second lot comprises 17,172 shares that are held in escrow in Montreal pursuant to the provisions of Golden Tiger's prospectus, which has been filed with the Quebec Securities Commission. Those shares can be released from escrow only with the approval of the Quebec Securities Commission upon application of the president of Golden Tiger. No application for a release has been made to the Quebec Securities Commission since June 26, 1985.

The Minister of Northern Development and Mines does not now have any control over those shares. He is not an officer or director of Golden Tiger. If the shares are released at any future date, they will immediately be transferred into the minister's present blind trust.

The minister has told me that last fall he received advice from his counsel as to the manner in which he was required to dispose of his shareholdings in Golden Tiger in order to comply with the conflict-of-interest guidelines. He has told me that, as outlined above, he has complied fully with that advice and, accordingly, he is not in violation of the conflict-of-interest guidelines.

The minister has also told me that the documents which verify his disposition of Golden Tiger shares are held by his lawyers, bankers and brokers. He has advised me that he requires 24 hours in order to contact these individuals and assemble the documents. He and his staff are at this moment engaged in the task.

Because of the very serious nature of the allegations made in the House yesterday, the minister has advised me he will not participate in any ministerial business pending his personal report to me and the outcome of inquiries being conducted by my office. I fully expect the minister will report to this House tomorrow.

Mr. Brandt: I say to the Premier that I am rather surprised and disappointed at the statement he made in the House today with respect to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine). Surely after a full 24 hours, he would have some clear and concise statement about whether the minister has the kind of direct conflict that appears to be the case from the comments I made yesterday.

I point out that in the Premier's statement today, he indicates the minister "has advised me that the disclosure statement filed with the Clerk of the House on January 31, 1986, is accurate." That can be interpreted as being totally inaccurate. I suggest the minister owned shares in Golden Tiger at the time he was required to make disclosure in this House. He did not file with the Clerk the fact that he owned those shares.

Further, on March 3, there was some suggestion of sales of shares or disposal or manipulation of stock that occurred fully two or three months after that time. Now we are into the month of June, and if it were not for the fact that we stood up in this House yesterday to advise the Premier of the matter, the people of Ontario would not have known -- certainly the Premier himself would not have known -- that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines owned at some point some interest in a mining corporation that has some 900 separate development sites in Ontario.

The Premier has a responsibility to this House and to the people of Ontario to say whether the minister did own those shares as of January 30, 1986. It is not necessarily only the minister's responsibility, but also the Premier's responsibility, to make that clear and concise statement. He has done nothing to clear the issue with the very modest statement he has given to the House today.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to respond to the Premier's statement with regard to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

First, we in this caucus believe nobody has the personal energy and the commitment to the north that the minister has. Let me also say it is our caucus's and my sincere hope that his defence will be found acceptable by the rules of the House and the Premier's guidelines and that he will be exonerated by the people of Ontario. However, the defence must be more substantial than that presented by the Premier today.

We believe the minister should stand aside, not merely for the 24 hours stated by the Premier, but until such time as it is clearly shown that he does not have either a real or perceived conflict of interest, as that is the case with civil servants and with proposed conflict-of-interest guidelines for deputy ministers.

The allegations that have been raised must be treated in the same manner and with the same urgency as those that were brought up with regard to the previous Chairman of Management Board. Even if the remaining 17,000 shares owned by the minister have been put in a blind trust, the fact remains that, unfortunately, the minister did not disclose them on the form he filed with the Clerk of the Legislature.

A number of questions remain: Is the trustee who holds the shares licensed under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, according to the rules in Ontario? The major question remains: How can a minister responsible for mines continue to operate in that capacity while he continues to hold, even in escrow, shares in a mining corporation that continues to operate in Ontario?

INVESTMENT IN THE ARTS

Hon. Ms. Munro: I apologize to the honourable members. I had intended to make this statement yesterday but time for statements ran out.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of announcing the details of the $10-million Investment in the Arts program which was first mentioned in the budget last month. I will now give my colleagues in the House details of the program.

Investment in the Arts was designed to help arts organizations stabilize their financial positions. Our aim with this program is to achieve a higher level of financial security for arts organizations.

Under this three-year program, my ministry will match $1 for every $1 raised above an organization's particular fund-raising base to the specified maximum grant. If the dollar comes from a new corporate donor, then we will match it two to one. The moneys raised will be put into an endowment fund and the organizations will have access to the interest. The matching ministry moneys can be used to retire an accumulated deficit.

The Ontario Arts Council will be an important partner in Investment in the Arts because its nonprofit arts organization clients will benefit most from the program, along with the ministry-supported arts service organizations.

The program was received by both the arts organizations and the businesses represented with a great deal of excitement. The arts organizations see it, and rightly so, as an excellent opportunity to get themselves into a long-term financially secure position, and the business sector sees it as an excellent investment, again rightly so. After all, the culture sector is Canada's 11th-largest manufacturing industry and the sixth-largest employer.

I made my announcement at the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts and, as I suggested to those present, in the 26 years since the O'Keefe Centre opened, the growth of that neighbourhood has been directly related to the presence of artistic activity. The many theatres and galleries in the area have been a magnet for dozens of restaurants, for condominium and co-operative housing developments and for a great deal of general business development.

The economic benefits of the arts should be considered on an international level, too, for culture opens doors to so many other opportunities such as trade.

Over and above the economic sense of investing in the arts, though, is the more intrinsic and in many ways the more genuine value of culture to a society, for culture over thousands of years has been to civilizations both a highly defined expression of artistic excellence and, at the same time, a more fluid expression of a society's aspirations and achievements.

Nations have developed and grown from visions largely provided by the arts and nations have been judged and valued by others for their creativity. They are a very real measure of our civility.

In my announcement, I stressed that this program requires an active partnership approach. No one could expect to get something for nothing. I urge the cultural organizations, who are providing to Ontarians a level of artistic and creative excellence that cannot be beaten anywhere, to take those creative skills and apply them to fund-raising. I appreciate the challenges of fund-raising, but, as I said to them, there are many untapped dollars still out there. A recent brief by Northern Telecom noted that only eight per cent of profitable Canadian companies make any donations to the arts.

The Continental Bank, well known as a major and innovative supporter of the arts, hosted the luncheon. That gesture is symbolic of the commitment we can expect from the business side of this partnership.

I assured them of this government's continuing support and I know that support for the arts in this province stretches across party lines. We all know and recognize that culture is really the hallmark of our society. I think members will all agree with me that, as such, the arts are surely worthy of this investment.

Mrs. Marland: I want to say at the outset that the objective of investment in the arts is always applauded by the Progressive Conservative Party. That has been well demonstrated and documented during the past 42 years.

I also want to say that the arts challenge fund, which about four years ago provided in excess of $50 million to the arts when lottery income was more than $50 million, does not compare to the pittance of $10 million that was announced yesterday when we now have lottery funds in excess of $300 million.

Corporate participation in support of the arts in Ontario must be encouraged. As the minister has pointed out, arts organizations are capable of responding to this challenge in a most creative way. However, the minister has chosen to focus on only one side of the equation. There is clearly no incentive to the corporate community to encourage its participation in this program.

If the minister had been serious, she would have undertaken to discuss this matter with her colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) with a view to providing some recognition of the corporate community's social conscience in supporting the arts, particularly as this program was obviously developed at the time of the Treasurer's budget in May.

Further, I must question whether the minister is not unduly penalizing the organizations that have already established solid fund-raising bases by prohibiting them from the opportunity to receive equal benefit from the government's program. I also question the minister's prudence in limiting dollar-for-dollar support for such organizations to 50 per cent of that of a new fund-raising initiative. Also, a match of two to one for dollars from new corporate donors is not fair to existing donors.

Finally, on behalf of the arts organizations that do not meet the minimum operating budget requirement or that have received assistance from the ministry before, I mention that the minister's guidelines for eligibility may be too restrictive. I want to know who is going to administer the fund, whether it is going to be a board of trustees, and whether the moneys raised can be used for operating expenditures. We look forward to more complete details.

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The issue of disclosure of adoption information has long been controversial in Ontario. Some have called for greater access to adoption information. Others say that the release of this information violates the right to personal privacy. It is an issue that members of this Legislature have debated many times. There have been literally years of consultation.

Today I wish to announce the planned changes to Ontario's legislation on the disclosure of adoption information.

In this regard, we owe a great debt to Dr. Ralph Garber. His report on the disclosure of adoption information, which I tabled in this House last November, was a sensitive look at this difficult issue. I am pleased to introduce Dr. Garber, who is with us today in the members' gallery.

Like Dr. Garber, the government of this province favours a more open approach to disclosure. We also recognize the right to privacy of all those involved in the adoption process. The changes which reflect that approach cover a number of areas.

First, let me refer to the release of nonidentifying information. Nonidentifying information is general background data on birth parents and information on the health and development of the adoptee, but this information does not disclose the identity of any of the parties.

Children's aid societies, licensees and the ministry will be required, under the amended legislation, to release nonidentifying information on request to all adult parties to an adoption. Adult birth brothers, sisters and grandparents of adoptees will also have access to this information.

My ministry is going to change the laws governing the disclosure of identifying information. That information will be released only with the consent of the birth relative in question and the adult adoptee.

Access to identifying information will be available only when the adopted child becomes an adult. In that way, the confidentiality of the adoptive family, the birth parents and the best interests of the adopted child are maintained while the child is growing up.

Because we feel that adoptees have a need and a right to know about their past, the government will also provide help to people seeking facts about their adoption. The province's adoption disclosure registry will become semi-active, authorized to undertake reasonable and discreet searches, but only on behalf of the adult adoptee who is looking for his or her birth parents or other biological relatives.

I want to assure this Legislature that searches will be conducted in absolute confidence by well-trained professionals in my ministry. The right of birth parents and other birth relatives to their personal privacy will be respected at all times, if that is their wish.

Under current legislation only adult adoptees and birth parents are given identifying information. It is our intention also to allow adult birth siblings and birth grandparents to register for access to identifying information.

The government is sensitive to the important role played by adoptive parents, but the present three-party consent law allows them to veto the decisions of adults who want and have a right to know more about their past. As a result, the government will introduce amendments to the legislation to move to two-party consent. This will allow an adult adoptee and his birth relatives to obtain identifying information without obtaining the consent of adoptive parents.

Under the changes, if an adult adoptee and his or her birth relative both give their consent, identifying information can be released to each. Adoption agencies and the ministry will be required to provide interpretive counselling to anyone receiving identifying or sensitive information about an adoption. Counselling has been found to be extremely valuable in helping individuals deal with this kind of information.

Two-party consent will also be required for any direct contact or reunion and, again, counselling will be mandatory. These requirements are designed to protect the privacy of birth relatives, some of whom wish to maintain their anonymity.

My staff is currently working on the necessary amendments to the Child and Family Services Act. I expect to introduce those amendments during the fall sitting of this Legislature.

I am also releasing today a policy paper which sets out these changes in more detail.

In the case of adoptions involving Indian and native children, further consultations will permit the development of an approach that will protect the interests of the child, the interests of his or her Indian band and the confidentiality of birth parents.

I know there will be mixed reactions to the changes I have announced. I feel, however, they strike the best possible balance. They are sensitive both to the individual's right to privacy and an adult's right to know about his or her past.

Mr. Cousens: The Minister of Community and Social Services and the government have broken the faith with this party in letting the media get the report first and in not following through on a commitment to me that they would allow us to discuss it. In spite of that, we will look at the report seriously. It is too important to see the work Dr. Garber and Dr. Elgie have done to get this whole thing started, go awry because of what the government is doing.

Mr. McClellan: I want to welcome the statement made by the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to improving access to adoption information. I know his statement will be welcomed by thousands of adult adoptees who are searching for their roots.

I should acknowledge as well the debt we all owe to my friend Ralph Garber, who remains my favourite socialist. I cannot help mentioning that the amendments the minister is moving this year are exactly the same in each and every respect as the amendments I moved in 1978, which were opposed and voted down by the very same member, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), who now introduces them as minister.

We have another example of a belated but very welcome conversion. We will look forward to seeing the legislation and will, I am sure, have some suggestion to the minister. I still favour an open system such as that which obtains in the United Kingdom, but any move forward and any progress that can get the support of a majority in this assembly is very welcome indeed.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Many Ontario farmers, caught between high input costs and heavy debt loads, are faced with the compounding problems of low commodity prices this year.

Corn and soybean producers in particular have experienced severe financial pressure because of low prices. For that reason, I am announcing an interim payment of $9 per ton for soybeans and $3.50 per ton for corn. Producers registered in the 1985 grain plan offered through the Farm Income Stabilization Commission are eligible for this payment.

For these two commodities, the Farm Income Stabilization Commission plans to provide producers with support of between 90 per cent and 95 per cent of the five-year average price of the commodity, with adjustments for cash costs.

Rather than wait to give a lump sum near the end of the year, we wanted to give the farmers some needed financial support now to help with this year's crop. Payments will be made on sales recorded by the Ontario Soybean Producers' Marketing Board and the Ontario Corn Producers' Association from September 1, 1985, to March 31, 1986.

Sales data required to process the payments to producers will be provided to the commission by the soybean board and the corn producers' association to help speed payments to the producers.

2:37 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier, in day 14 of the doctors' strike. He has assured us from day one that his government is monitoring the situation out there and that the situation is not out of control. He has told us of his personal attention being paid to this.

In the circumstances, therefore, will he give us information, which I am sure his government has, with regard to the number of abortions that have been cancelled throughout the system, the number of bypass surgeries that have been cancelled, the number of exploratory surgeries for procedures for cancer that have been cancelled, the number of northerners who have prepaid their travel arrangements and have lost their prepayments because their operations have been cancelled, how many children have had their tonsillectomies cancelled and how many beds are now empty, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto? If the Premier has monitored the situation, can he give us that information?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not have that information, but I will refer the question to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), who may be able to assist the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) better.

Mr. Grossman: No. If the Premier does not have it, that is fine.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the Premier has referred that to the Minister of Health; correct?

Mr. Grossman: No. He answered the question. He does not know.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He has redirected it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: He cannot answer it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How could he know?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the Premier refer to the Minister of Health?

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to know whether a question can be answered and then referred. In other words, can two or three people answer? We asked a question, we got the answer; now he is referring. It is either referred or it is not.

Mr. Speaker: I agree, and I understand the Premier referred it to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Grossman: No, he did not.

Mr. Gillies: He answered the question and then he referred it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If I might, I would like to join in the discussion. I do not know what your ruling will be, Mr. Speaker, but the Premier received the question and said: "I do not know the answer. I refer it to the Minister of Health. Perhaps he knows." Surely the question was asked with the thought that the questioner would like to be provided with the answer. The only person who might know the answer is the Minister of Health.

Mr. Gillies: The question was asked to see whether the Premier knew what was going on, and he does not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How could he possibly know? It is a stupid question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: He cannot come marching in here and say there is no problem.

Mr. Reycraft: If one asks a question, one expects an answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened to the point of order. I listened to the comment. I understood the Premier to refer it to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Grossman: No.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member was up on the point of order, and I --

Mr. Harris: I think I can help you out of an embarrassing mistake; that is all.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order.

Mr. Martel: This has taken four minutes of question period.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The purpose of the time is to ask questions and to get responses.

Mr. Harris: We got the response. We did not get --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I recognize the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Elston: At this time, I think it would be of interest to us to reflect on an answer given by a previous Minister of Health in relation to a strike in 1982.

Mr. Gordon: The minister does not know either.

Mr. Pope: This is disgusting.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The interesting item in that situation was that there was a question that required an answer with respect to the number of operations that had been cancelled in the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital. The then Minister of Health stood in his place and said, "It is unrealistic for you to know."

I can tell the honourable members we have taken a considerable amount of time to be in touch with the hospitals where services are being restricted. We have watched as the medical judgements and opinions have been rendered. I can tell the honourable members I do not have any running total of the categories the honourable gentleman has mentioned to us. There is some estimate of elective procedures that have been cancelled for the moment, but since they are only elective in nature, people do not always contact us with respect to procedures that have been cancelled.

In addition to that, as the honourable member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) brought to our attention not long ago, it is more difficult to figure out how many people have been referred and have not been referred.

Mr. Gordon: The minister is sickening. They are all on their own.

Mr. Pope: The poor people are on their own.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: I asked my original question of the Premier to determine whether he knew what was happening in the health care system. He said he did not and referred it elsewhere. I want to ask my supplementary of the Premier to see whether he can provide the information --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementary must flow out of the response; therefore, it must go to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe you made an error. The question went to the Premier; he answered the question, and the supplementary is to the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I tried to help you out of the mistake you made before in allowing the response --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: The question is out of the Premier's answer. You are making a joke out of the question period.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Polsinelli: If you ask a question, do you not expect an answer?

Ms. Fish: He does not know the answer. Why do you not listen to your own Premier?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: They have the biggest cabinet in the history of this province, and there is not one of them over there who can answer a question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will wait. Supplementary to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Harris: He answered the question, and that is what a supplementary is to deal with.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member take his seat.

Mr. Gillies: We have a government that cannot answer questions half the time and refuses to answer them the other half.

Mr. Polsinelli: The members opposite do not want an answer.

Mr. Gillies: We got an answer: The Premier does not know.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier assures everyone there is only inconvenience in the system, but he does not have any information upon which to base that assurance and he will not answer questions in this House.

I am forced to put my supplementary question to the Minister of Health, as opposed to the Premier. Can the minister tell this House whether he has informed the Premier of all the information I asked about a moment ago? If he has not, how can he continue to tell the people of Ontario that he has the system under control, that he is monitoring it and that there is only inconvenience? How can the minister do that when he does not have the information?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There is no secret about the fact that I communicate daily not only with the Premier but also with the people involved in administering our public hospitals, the publicly funded institutions in which the slowdown is occurring. I am also in daily contact with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. When advice is given to me that a procedure has been cancelled or an intervention is required, we do that sort of thing.

As the member for Cochrane South pointed out in his question last week, I do not know about situations where a referral has taken place from northern Ontario until advice is given to me by the individual patient. We do our best to respond to questions when individual patients come to us. With respect to our understanding of the work of therapeutic abortion committees, for instance, all the matters that have come before those committees and all the procedures that are required as a result of their deliberations have been carried out.

I think that provides the member with an answer to his question. I have communicated directly with the Premier every day. We will keep not only the Premier but also the public up to date on the fact that medical decisions are being rendered and the system in Ontario is functioning.

Mr. Grossman: We are in day 14, and tomorrow we will enter the third week of a strike in this province. How can the Minister of Health tell the people of this province that there is no danger out there, that their safety is okay and that there is only inconvenience, when the minister and the Premier have to rise in this House and say they do not know how many heart bypasses have been cancelled? Does the minister not have at least that information on hand? How many heart procedures have been cancelled in the past two weeks?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I remind the honourable gentleman of an article that appeared in the London Free Press wherein a medical practitioner, when asked about a procedure that was cancelled, was quoted as saying, "Do not inquire into the health of my patients." That practitioner indicated he makes medically necessary judgements and will continue to do so. Our government has indicated it wants physicians to be free to make those decisions.

I can tell the public that, from what I understand, no medically necessary procedures are being cancelled without the review of the medical practitioners.

Mr. Pope: The minister has no way of knowing that.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It seems the member for Cochrane South would rather intervene between physician and patient. That is not the position of this government.

I can tell the member that those people are providing medical services to the people of this province. We are performing. We have intervened in situations to ensure that the administrative capabilities of our public hospitals are continued and carried out. We are assuring the people here that we know what is taking place in the province.

Mr. Grossman: I invite the minister to stop reading press clippings, particularly his own, and to begin to be the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Premier, if he will agree to accept it. At a press conference held at two o'clock this afternoon, the Ontario Medical Association and Dr. Railton reported that the Premier had been calling Dr. Railton several times up to midnight last night and that his suggestion for mediation, after he has taken away some important elements of health care practitioners' protection in this province, is too late and, to quote Dr. Railton, "It's baloney." Can the Premier tell us now as we enter the third week of the strike -- I will wait for the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) to finish his advice.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Can the Premier tell us what he now intends to do, given that he has been unable to stop the strike, that his relationships with the OMA are so badly severed he cannot do anything about it and he does not know what is happening in the health care system?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member is quite right. I did chat with Dr. Railton last night; he phoned me at home, and I was very happy to chat with him.

As the member knows, the minister put forward yesterday what I believe is a very significant suggestion when he said he wanted to look at the issues that have always been raised by the medical profession, the so-called questions of professional freedom and liberty. We have said we are prepared to address those in substantial ways, with the assistance of a third party, if that is what they desire. They have had a chance to analyse it.

I have not seen Dr. Railton's statement from the press conference he had, and I will have to take the member's word of what he said. I have not had any official word back. We have had no official response to the offer that was made by the Minister of Health.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier's suggestions to the OMA are tantamount to Jesse James applying to be a Brinks driver.

At the press conference, the OMA indicated the strike was going to continue unabated. With regard to the Premier's attempts to appear to be anxious to mediate and conciliate, Dr. Railton said the letter the Premier had his minister write indicates the Premier did not intend to mediate since he first brought up the question of mediation in the House and, unbelievably but not surprising to those of us who work in this Legislature, gave the letter addressed to Dr. Railton to the media before he had it delivered to Dr. Railton. Given that this is the way the Premier intends to try to stop the strike, what is he now suggesting he is going to do next in the circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is obvious the member has a new private investigator writing his lines in the House.

Let me say that offer was made in good faith by the minister; it was conveyed immediately to Dr. Railton. As the member knows, I have had the opportunity to speak to a large number of doctors in the past few weeks. Almost everywhere I go, I have an opportunity to chat with doctors. I am always delighted to see them, share my views with them and get their insights into the question. A lot of the doctors I have talked to were not always aware of the kinds of things that have been going on in the discussions the minister has been having on an ongoing basis for the past year with the medical profession. Even though we live in this great information age, sometimes all the details are not transmitted down.

I think it is important that the whole medical community understands the view of the government in this matter. That is why we have put forward specific suggestions that would address the specific concerns they have raised. They believe it is a matter of professional freedom, I gather, and I accept that at face value. We have said we are prepared to address those concerns in a real way. That is what we have offered, and I hope the OMA will look at the situation and, if the member tells me they have rejected that today, I hope they will reconsider.

Mr. Grossman: The people the Premier has to try to accommodate, having called them overrated, overpaid gougers, are saying his deathbed repentance is baloney. That is the circumstance he faces. Given that, I have a proposition to put to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: By way of question.

Mr. Grossman: I propose this afternoon to call Dr. Railton --

Mr. Foulds: Right now?

Mr. Martel: Got a dime?

Mr. Warner: Where is the phone?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I will invite him and his people to meet with me in my office over the next couple of days to see whether, together, we might be able to develop the kind of package the Premier is unable to develop because of the way he has handled this.

Mr. Breaugh: Here is the mediator.

Mr. Epp: The member wants to play Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: If we are able to come to some sort of proposal --

Mr. Martel: Is the member for real?

Mr. Grossman: I will wait until his advisers are finished.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Grossman: If we are able to come to some sort of proposal, will the Premier be willing --

Mr. Warner: This is fascinating.

Mr. Martel: Is he for real?

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will wait until you get order from the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mr. Harris: We need more order in the House to ask the question. Everybody else gets called to order.

Mr. Pope: It is all right. Only sick people are involved.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please put your final supplementary question.

Mr. Grossman: When we put questions in the House, Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to the same kind of peace that you demand when the ministers give answers.

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand you have no further supplementary?

Mr. Grossman: No, you do not.

Mr. Speaker: Place your supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: Since we are going to invite the OMA to meet with us to see whether we can accomplish a package which the Premier obviously is unable to put together with it, will he agree to join that meeting if, as and when it becomes appropriate to put that proposal to him?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It was my impression the Leader of the Opposition was in constant touch with the OMA and, as a matter of fact, that was what he used his telephone for and why he wanted it back. If this is a new call, I am interested. The member can probably excuse his colleagues in the House, who have known him for almost a decade, for snickering when he made that suggestion. The Treasury is still reverberating from the last meeting he had with the doctors a little while ago.

We are obviously searching for constructive suggestions. In fairness, I must say I have never seen the member in the role of conciliator or mediator. Others may have, and I may have misjudged some of his characteristics. There are always hidden sides to everyone's character, and he may have some talents I have not seen.

If the member has any good ideas, we are always interested. So far, I have not heard any. However, if the member is asking me to back off the bill, the answer is the same as before. Frankly, I do not think most people observing us think his suggestion is very credible.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Wildman: I have a question arising out of the Premier's statement related to the allegations regarding the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine). Can the minister confirm that this is a quote from the report the minister filed: "No share interests in public corporations"? If so, does his own statement not indicate that was an inaccurate statement? Does he believe that such a statement from a minister of the crown is acceptable? Also, can he explain why, when rumours of this matter have been rampant for some weeks, he apparently took no action until the matter was raised in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member says rumours have been rampant for several weeks. I can tell him I never heard the rumours. I had never heard of Golden Tiger until yesterday in this House. I had never heard of the situation. The member says rumours were abounding for some wide period. I had heard rumours that the Conservatives were trying to get the honourable member and had detectives on him, but I had not heard of this situation.

Mr. Mancini: Get the police dogs out.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Very serious allegations of fact have been made in this House and I take them very seriously. All I knew, as of yesterday, was the charges that were levelled in this House. I immediately undertook to ascertain the facts. As I said to members today, the minister has told me that, as of the filing on January 31 or so, he owned no shares in public corporations. Thus, there is obviously a serious difference between the facts as put forward in this House and the things the minister has told me today.

He is now in the process of gathering up all of those facts and substantiating his facts with documentation. He will be in the House tomorrow to share that information with members. I am sure my honourable friend, being a fair-minded member of this House, would like to hear the facts according to the minister, with supporting documentation.

It appears at the moment that the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) has one understanding of the facts, which he presumably believes in, and the minister has told me other things. The member will want to hear those facts laid out in the House tomorrow, I am very sure.

Mr. Wildman: The Premier's own statement indicated there was one block of about 17,000 shares still held by the minister but in escrow, as I understand it. If that is the case, is it a tolerable situation for a minister of mines of this province, who is responsible for administering the Mining Tax Act, the Ontario Mineral Exploration Program Act and the Mining Act, to hold shares, even if they are in a blind trust or in escrow, in a company that is apparently doing business in mining in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told members, the minister is going to have a very clear statement tomorrow, and I know my honourable friend, being fair-minded, would not want to prejudge these things. These questions can be put in a very specific way.

Without knowing all the facts, just on the basis of what I have been told so far, my understanding is that some of those shares were in escrow because of some other financial arrangement and the minister had no control over that situation.

He will share with this House the view that he had legal advice that this conformed with the conflict-of-interest guidelines. The member may well have the view -- and frankly, it may be shared by many members of this House -- that the conflict-of-interest guidelines are inadequate. That is a constant source of worry to me. However, I believe that, as fair-minded members, they would want to hear the facts laid out tomorrow. I am looking forward to that.

Mr. Philip: Would the Premier not agree that under his guidelines: (1) there is a requirement that there be a disclosure even if the shares are held in escrow; (2) if there are any changes in the composition or ownership, there is a requirement on page 2 for a disclosure; and (3) it now appears from the Premier's statement that at least some of the shares are not in the hands of a trustee who is licensed under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act of Ontario? Will the Premier not admit that, even from his statement, there are three obvious violations of his own guidelines?

If there are three violations, why would he not ask the minister to step down, in the same way as the former Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan), stepped down, until there can be a free, independent inquiry into this matter? Or does he have a double standard; one for the Chairman of Management Board and one for this minister?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Frankly, I do not think the situations are quite parallel from this point of view. The former Chairman of Management Board laid the facts before this House, and I think there is some difference with respect to the interpretation of the conflict-of-interest guidelines as they pertain to those facts. Discussion has started in that regard.

In this case, the member for Sarnia has made very serious allegations of fact. On the basis of what I know today, the facts as he put them in this House are not correct and the facts the minister will bring tomorrow-and this is on the basis of what I am told -- differ substantially from that. It is not a question of the interpretation of the conflict-of-interest guidelines; they are different facts.

We will go on to the third point. The member would say that anyone against whom a charge is levelled in this House, or at least a minister of the crown, presumably, should resign. The member will be aware, because he has been around here a long time, that ministers are charged regularly with a great number of things. I remember many of them in the past.

Is the member saying a minister should not have the opportunity to put the facts clearly before the House, but that any time there is an allegation there should be an immediate withdrawal on the presumption of guilt? I do not think we want to put any of us in that position. If the member is suggesting we need a thorough review of the conflict-of-interest guidelines or other ways to handle these difficult situations, I am completely with him in that regard.

There is no more troublesome issue to a first minister than the one that has been raised here and that has been raised in the House many times before. We search for advice on how to handle that, because we recognize our responsibilities to the public in that regard.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Has he had an opportunity to look at the case that was outlined in the Toronto Star yesterday involving Tiffany Rutherford, aged two, who went four days without treatment from the medical care system because of the doctors' strike? Is he satisfied with the letter sent out by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on June 19, signed by Dr. Catton, which states, "The issue now before you and before your council is to ensure that such protests are made without endangering patient life or health"? Is the minister satisfied that this individual's health was not endangered by the strike?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I reviewed the report that was in the press but I have not had a chance to review it fully with the college. That is the situation as it stands right now.

I am concerned that the report in the papers was that, had there been any further delay, there could have been a more permanent problem for that patient. The situation was reported to be one of a very serious nature and we will be following up this matter more specifically with the college.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Since the doctors of this province have decided that public hospital emergency wards will be closed and also how many doctors will staff public hospital emergency wards, can the minister tell us who owns the hospitals? Who controls the hospitals of this province? Is it the doctors or the people of the province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member knows, from his role as Health critic, that the independent boards of trustees are the people who make the decisions about what happens in their hospitals. They pass the bylaws. They make decisions of a business nature with respect to what happens in those facilities. They have in place certain mechanisms whereby people make determinations of a medical nature. The public of this province is responsible for those public hospitals.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If the public owns the hospitals, I do not know why the Minister of Health and this government are allowing the doctors to do what they are doing to the health care system of this province.

Last night I was in Windsor, my home community, and I read in the paper that Dr. Donald Nassr, the chief of psychiatry at the Metropolitan General Hospital, has decided to carry out a one-man strike. He controls nine beds in a psychiatry ward at the hospital and all nine are empty because he refuses to admit anyone into those beds he controls.

First, does that not violate the letter the college sent out? Second, does this not demonstrate that a profession is trying to take away the health care system we own? When is this government going to have the guts to take that system back for the people of this province?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman may be suggesting the physician is putting his patients at risk. If that is what he is indicating, then there will be a follow-up on that matter.

When people make decisions, and there are decisions made every day about whether treatment is required in an institution or whether that treatment can be delivered in another area, those decisions are made from a medical standpoint. When it comes to decisions about who has admitting privileges, who does not have admitting privileges or who is able to make use of the facilities, these matters are determined under the bylaws and at the discretion of the people who are on the boards of directors of those independent institutions.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: I have a question of the Premier, who has indicated in a number of statements he has made with respect to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) that this is a very complex issue. I want to share with the Premier a document I will pass over to him. It is a disclosure of public holdings that was filed with the Clerk of the House on January 31, 1986. Would the Premier state in a very clear and concise way to this House whether that document is accurate and whether the minister owned shares in Golden Tiger as of that date?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Very simply, the answer is that the minister tells me he did not. That is what he tells me.

Mr. Brandt: Not only does the Premier's own statement not indicate that, but also it is very strange that the minister himself would find it necessary to dispose of shares on March 3 but not to disclose the ownership of those share at a prior time when the evidence would indicate very clearly that he did have ownership of those shares at that point.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On March 3?

Mr. Brandt: Yes, on March 3, and today he still owns those shares.

Mr. Gillies: Today he owns 17,000 shares.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I will attempt to simplify what has apparently become a rather complex issue. Surely, the Premier would know within 24 hours why his minister had to make certain transactions in March with respect to those shares, whether he owned the shares on January 31 when he made disclosure and, if he did not make disclosure because he did not own them, as the Premier is now putting before the House, why he did not make a supplemental affirmation of his ownership of the shares at some later date or bring to the attention of the public that he owned them?

As my friends in the third party have said, here is a minister who is involved in lumbering and in mining and yet the public does not know about his ownership in this particular company.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure I can satisfy my honourable friend opposite. I think he, as a fair-minded member, will want to be careful and not make allegations in the absence of all the facts. I told him there would be a statement here tomorrow.

My understanding is -- and I hope I am not wrong -- that the sale was registered on March 3. As frequently happens in share transfer registers -- that is obviously the document the member's detective checked -- the sale took place prior to that, prior to the filing on January 31. That is my understanding of what went on, and the answer specifically to the member's question.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. McClellan: I have to ask virtually the same question of the Premier. In his statement today, the Premier said the minister owned two lots of shares. The first lot was sold and the second lot consists of 17,172 shares that are held in escrow. My question is very simple. Does the minister own those shares and did he own them on January 31?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My understanding is they were in escrow. My understanding is he has no control over those particular shares. That may not satisfy the member. I am not in a position, legally, to answer all these questions at present. I am sure the honourable member wants a full explanation of that, which will presumably be coming forward tomorrow.

Mr. McClellan: The facts appear to be that he owned the shares and submitted a form on which he said he did not own the shares. Is the trustee of the second lot of 17,172 shares registered under the Ontario Loan and Trust Corporations Act?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not pretend to be an authority. That is my understanding. It is Guaranty Trust and it is registered in Quebec and Ontario.

Mr. Pope: I know the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) thinks this line of questioning is contemptuous, but let me deal with the Premier's knowledge.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I said it was contemptible.

Mr. Pope: Contemptible. I am not talking about the member for Cochrane North. I want to ask the Premier a question about his knowledge.

On September 3, 1985, the Kingston Whig-Standard, after interviewing the Premier's colleagues in his caucus from eastern Ontario, reported that the Premier personally and his office had "examined every facet in the MPPs' personal and financial life. No detail was left unturned. Every member of the Liberal caucus was grilled for hours. A detailed questionnaire had to be filled out and sent to the Premier's office.

"When two of the eastern Ontario MPPs...were elevated to cabinet posts, the screws tightened another notch. The Liberal leader was determined to make sure that his fragile government would be free of even a hint of scandal."

Did the Premier know, during the course of the early interviews by himself and his office staff, about the holdings of the member for Cochrane North?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I personally did not know.

Mr. Pope: Is this article accurate? Did the Premier and his office examine in detail every financial aspect of every member of his caucus in August 1985?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: At the transition time, an independent lawyer was brought in to survey all these matters. A member of the firm of Tory, Tory, Deslauriers and Binnington was brought in to analyse these situations in conjunction with Blenus Wright. If the member is asking me whether I --

Mr. Laughren: That was the problem.

Mr. Martel: No wonder he is in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am answering the question. I did not personally survey all these matters. I asked for advice and asked whether everything was fine and that was what I was told.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment about one aspect of his white paper that is distinctly vague. The minister told us he is going to control the 200 industries that discharge directly into Ontario's waterways. He is not going to impose controls on the 12,000 industries that discharge into sewage treatment plants. It appears from the white paper that a large producer of organic chemicals will be controlled, but a small one can continue to use dilution as his solution to pollution.

Can the minister tell the House why he is not imposing stringent limits immediately on these 12,000 industries or, at the very least, by mid-1987 when the 200 will be controlled?

An hon. member: Do not water down your answer.

Mr. Guindon: Do not pollute.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Pardon? Do not dilute the answer?

Mr. Speaker: On the original question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try not to dilute the answer for the member for Lakeshore. There are more interruptions coming from the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon), but I will ignore them, Mr. Speaker, because you always instruct me to do so.

The member identifies two different ways in which effluent can be produced and go into a waterway. One is the direct way that goes directly into the waterway.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is interested and he should listen. This is where one catches the major polluters, as I have indicated, the direct effluent going into the waterways, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment. In addition, the ministry has legislative responsibility for the effluent produced by sewage treatment plants across the province. We have given instructions through the white paper and the suggestions -- for which we are looking for reaction within the next 60 days -- that sewage treatment plants will be evaluated, will be monitored and will have abatement procedures applied to them.

There are two ways in which municipalities can deal with this matter. It is very likely that the way in which they will deal with it is through the bylaws they have for the discharge of sewage from any of these sources within a municipality into the sewage treatment plant. That is what they have responsibility for. We in the ministry are pleased to assist the municipalities to deal with that matter in any way we can.

3:20 p.m.

Mrs. Grier: It sounds as though the minister is putting upon municipalities, which are inadequately equipped to control, the responsibility for a job the ministry ought to be undertaking itself.

It is now a year since the minister took office and there has been no diminution in the amount of discharge to waterways. It appears from this white paper that it is going to be another three or four years before there is any diminution of the amount that is being discharged. Can the minister tell us what he is going to do in the interim?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member forgets -- and I am sure she might be able to recall if she thought about it for some time -- that there are many ways in which effluent going into the waterways is controlled at present. Some of them are by certificates of approval; some are by control orders. On an ongoing basis, certificates of approval are evaluated, particularly when a problem is identified. Control orders are a dynamic process at this time.

She would know of the Chipman incident, for instance; I think of Ontario Paper, where there is a public process for evaluating a previous control order and upgrading or updating that control order. All around the province we are going through the procedure of evaluating and upgrading those control orders on an almost daily basis.

We see a diminishing of those products going into the environment. Of course, that is in addition to the program we have outlined. I know the member would want to have sufficient opportunity for environmental groups and others who are going to be directly affected by this to have the input that the white paper provides for.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Premier. There are 17,172 shares, according to the statement he delivered to the House earlier today, that are currently in escrow on the part of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine). Would the Premier indicate to this House whether, in his opinion, the member for Cochrane North owns the shares he has in escrow?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not in a position to give the member a legal opinion on that matter. He wants to try to force this out of me at the present time.

Mr. Grossman: Why make a statement on it, then?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was trying to share what I knew, what I am told at the present time. I told the member that the minister was coming back. Would he prefer that I say nothing today?

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has had a day to ask him whether he owns them.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the member opposite wants to be somewhat fair-minded about this situation and append all the facts. Then he can ask any questions he likes on the situation. I do not pretend to be an expert on this. As the member knows, when one escrows one's shares, one has absolutely no control over them, as I understand it.

Mr. Grossman: It is not a question of control.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Why does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) not answer the question? He can help his friend out, because he knows everything.

Mr. Grossman: l would have found out in one day, I can tell the Premier that, and he would have been gone if he did.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier will find in his review of the conflict-of-interest guidelines that the fact the 17,172 shares are in escrow implies ownership -- not necessarily control, but ownership -- of those shares. Will the Premier indicate to this House when the Minister of Northern Development and Mines disclosed publicly the ownership of those shares, which he ostensibly has in escrow?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I understand it, escrow means, by definition, that one does not have control. They are in escrow under the control of someone pending certain other resolutions. That is the situation.

The member is trying to say the minister was hiding something.

Mr. Brandt: No, I am not saying that. He has a responsibility to declare --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Sure, he is saying that. The member is entitled to make his judgements on these matters. However, all these facts will be made public tomorrow.

I am not a lawyer. I was, but I have lost my QC. I have given up my QC, and I never was a very good lawyer. As the member knows, I am living proof of why QCs should not exist. I have never practised.

The member can ask all these legal questions in his pursuit of my honourable friend. He can make his points in that regard. He is suggesting that the minister is trying to hide something, that he was manipulating them and that sort of thing. I have told the member what I know today. I hope he will hear the minister out tomorrow.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Premier regarding the report of the standing committee on resources development, which was tabled in the Legislature earlier this week. This is the Report on the Impact of the Announced Layoffs at The Algoma Steel Corporation Limited in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa, a report which contained a number of very good recommendations for the government for action to improve the economic situation in that area.

Has the Premier reviewed this report? Does the Premier agree with the recommendations of this report that have been supported by the members of all three parties on that committee? When the Premier comes to Sault Ste. Marie in July -- it is well known in Sault Ste. Marie that he does have a visit scheduled for that time -- will the Premier be making announcements on the specific recommendations of this report for the Sault and area?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have been gathering a great deal of advice with respect to the problems of northern Ontario, including from the members of this House. In my opinion, it has been a remarkable co-operative effort and some very constructive ideas have been put forward by the members of the opposition.

As I understand it, that report has not been debated in the House but it is one of the sources of information we will be using, as I have told my honourable friend. We have been working very hard on a number of long-term and short-term initiatives for northern Ontario and I hope, as he knows, to have an announcement fairly soon.

I heard some of his colleagues have already made some of the announcements on our behalf. I want to thank him for anything he can do to spread the information.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Surely the Premier realizes that we have two economies going on in this province. I am sure he is aware from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that the revenues from the growing economy in the south are expanding and surpassing the expectations we had last fall.

Are the Premier and his government going to take action to see that those revenues from the growing economy in the south are diverted to those areas of the province such as Sault Ste. Marie, but other areas as well, to ensure that we have a more balanced economy in this province and that those areas which are not growing are given the economic and public resources to turn around those areas so that we have more jobs available for those who really need them?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do take the matter extremely seriously. It has a very high priority for this government. As I have said, a lot of thought has been put into it. The member lays out the problems very well.

As he knows, the Treasurer has substantially increased the allocation for the northern development fund but there are other initiatives required as well. There is no one solution to the problems of the north, as I am sure my honourable friend would agree with me. There is a myriad of small things as well as some long-term approaches to the problem.

I just hope when we make the announcement in the not-too-distant future of what we have in mind -- and believe me, we have been canvassing every option -- that we will have the member's assistance and the assistance of his colleagues in making it work, not just in the short term but over the long term as well.

COMPUTER CONTRACTS

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Premier about computer contracts. The Premier will know that on June 10 we put a question in Orders and Notices asking him to provide us with the names of all companies that have received contracts in the past year to provide computer software or hardware to his government and whether these contracts were tendered.

In reply to the question in Orders and Notices, the acting Chairman of Management Board, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), tells the opposition that this information will not be available until approximately October 10. Is the Premier's government so disorganized it cannot get this information together for four months, or does he have it and he just does not want to tell us?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are literally scores and scores of contracts with respect to computer services for the various ministries. I am very happy to share the information. We are gathering it up, as the member knows. I am not the one who does it personally, but he constantly tries to create the impression that we have something to hide. We have nothing to hide.

Mr. Gillies: When he gets around to freedom of information legislation, I hope we will not constantly be required to wait four months for information.

By way of supplementary --

Mr. Grossman: Why does the Premier not give the information? He should bring in his bill.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member is not going to talk about freedom of information, is he? In a decade, his government never produced a bill. His party should not dare talk about freedom of information.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is clearly uncomfortable about the closed nature of this government.

When we asked in questions in Orders and Notices about the Exploracom project, we also asked for some very specific information, which was not provided. I ask the Premier again: Will he table with this House the current proposal put before the government in writing by Exploracom? Will he table the minutes of any meetings that were held between Exploracom and his government? Will he table correspondence between Mr. Schwartz and the ministry, and will he table the financial arrangements that are being entered into between his government and Exploracom? Those things were not contained in the information he brought forward yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If my honourable friend is frustrated in his search for something, he should just put the question on the Orders and Notices paper and it will help him to find it.

Mr. Gillies: We did.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He did? The relevant information was tabled, to the best of my knowledge, plus comparisons. We thought it was important to compare the way his government used to make grants compared to the way ours makes them. He should want to look into those matters. Some of his own announcements for the International Telecommunications Discovery Centre in Brantford had absolutely no scrutiny at all until he announced it with the help of his friend. We are happy to share all of that.

As the member knows, one thing we cannot make public is cabinet minutes. However, as I understand it, all the information was made public. I have not read all the information -- I do not check it, obviously -- but what was available was provided to him. If he has specific questions, if he thinks there is some collusion, then he should stand up and say so. Just because he does not find what he is looking for does not mean it is not there.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. He will understand the AIDS Committee of Toronto has asked for additional funding to deal with the support services and the health education it now provides. Why has there not been approval for this extended funding, since this organization provides health education and prevention as well as support services to the victims of acquired immune deficiency syndrome in Toronto and throughout the province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to that committee, we have provided it with funding in the past. It was the subject of a considerable portion of the Queen's Park report of the member for St. George (Ms. Fish). She announced that last year we made a decision to fund them. We have funded them again this year. In fact, we made some arrangements to provide some cash flow.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that one of the biggest problems has been the fact that the federal authorities have not come through with funding to the extent the committee had hoped. I can also tell him that considerable effort is going into health education with respect to AIDS through the Ontario Public Education Panel on AIDS, and we are very interested in not getting into a situation where we have duplication.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I know the Ministry of Health provides $100,000 per year, but the minister will also understand that $100,000 per year works out to the cost of two cases if individuals come down with the disease. Does the minister not understand that it would be a much better investment to put money into counselling and into health education? While the federal government will not live up to its obligations, he is the Minister of Health, and health, the last time I looked, was a provincial responsibility. Will the minister not reconsider further funding for the AIDS Committee of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to this matter, I am not sure a formal request has been made, although I have heard they are interested in receiving extended funding.

I have to indicate to the honourable member and to the people of the province that we are concerned about the question of educating people with respect to the nature of AIDS. We have continued to do that by developing a consistent approach to developing materials that not only can be distributed in Ontario but have also been made available to the federal authorities and to the Health ministers of each of the other provinces.

We have done a considerable amount of work under the auspices of Dr. Jay Browne and OPEPA. We are making great strides in providing that educational material and making it available throughout the province and in Toronto. We have provided funding for them. We are interested in what they are doing and how they are performing for the public. I have indicated that publicly on many occasions. The people from the AIDS Committee of Toronto also help to serve on OPEPA. I think we are doing a very good job with respect to providing educational material.

BUSINESS PROGRAMS

Mr. Ferraro: I have a two-part question for the Treasurer. Many small business people to whom I have spoken at the committee of parliamentary assistants for small business, which I chair, and throughout this province have many positive things to say about the recently announced budget, and indeed they should, but they have also put questions to me and I assured them I would ask the Treasurer in the House.

The first question is whether there is consideration by the Treasurer and his ministry of extending the employee share ownership plan to larger corporations. The second question, which I hope the Treasurer can answer, is with regard to a further extension of the small business development corporations program, particularly to the service sector.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The employee share ownership program is in the process of formation. I hope to have a bill before the House in the fall. I have already made an announcement in the House asking for the views of the members, the financial community, organized labour and the working community in general. The idea is that it not be used as a reward for senior executives but that it allow working people in a corporation to participate.

As far as extending SBDCs into the service sector is concerned, there was an extension in the budget this time into software and certain other aspects. My concern at the moment is that the money available through SBDCs be taken up more enthusiastically. We think it is a good program, and it is my job to see that the business community is aware of it and knows of its availability to finance the entrepreneurial expansion that is so important to jobs and economic progress in Ontario.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister's assistant has made a completely irresponsible statement to the press that not one child has been harmed by the strike at the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto.

A six-year-old boy was featured on the CBC news last week who has regressed to violent behaviour after being sent home from a treatment centre three weeks early. Children were moved out of the Lloyd S. Richardson Residence group home who are so uncontrollable that one was just in the hospital for stitches. There are children in abusive environments, cut off from their social workers.

The minister has the final responsibility to ensure that these children are protected. When will he get involved in this strike at the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have been advised that the staff and the board of the society are meeting again this afternoon to renew their negotiations. I understand the board is prepared to make a new offer, and I have very high hopes that the staff will accept the offer.

PETITIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition signed by every single patient of a specific doctor's office in my constituency. He is a doctor who has not taken any job action during the course of the strike. Every one of his patients has asked that the following petition be read to the Legislature:

"I am concerned that the passage of Bill 94 will ultimately affect the accessibility of health care by the inevitable reduction of services that come with nationalized medicine. I am anxious not to see reductions in the time and care being given to me and to my family now and in the future by my physician. I ask you to acknowledge that the issue of extra billing is a separate issue which should not be used to confuse the public into acceptance of a package which will ultimately be used to reduce medical services in a way over which the medical profession and the public have no control."

3:40 p.m.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 24 residents of the community of Dubreuilville which reads:

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

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

"The citizens of Dubreuilville respectfully request that the ministry improve the design and construction of secondary Highway 519 to Dubreuilville. Our request includes the following: (1) that the first section of Highway 519 be redesigned to eliminate or improve the three main curves in order to avoid serious accidents; (2) that the 10-mile hill on the second section of Highway 519, presently under construction, be lowered sufficiently to facilitate travel for logging trucks and other heavy equipment; (3) that the EGO mine curve or 7.2 km curve into town be improved also; (4) that the ministry seriously consider replacing the Bailey bridge situated at the entrance to town.

"The citizens of Dubreuilville have been waiting 20 years to have this road reconstructed, and they would like to have it done properly the first time to improve safety and driving conditions for all who must travel on Highway 519."

I have a second petition from the residents of Renabie and Missanabie at the border of Algoma and Nickel Belt ridings, in addition to the previous one submitted to the House. This petition is signed by 28 residents and reads:

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

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

"That the Ministry of Transportation and Communications provide the funds to upgrade and straighten out a number of dangerous curves on the road connecting Missanabie to Renabie Gold Mines and Missabay Mining Inc."

ABORTION CLINICS

Mr. Ferraro: I have two petitions to present, one with 28 signatures on it and the other with 24 signatures on it, from my riding; they essentially state:

"The Morgentaler and newly opened Scott abortion clinics are in violation of section 251 of the Criminal Code, wherefor the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon parliament to immediately enforce the closure of the aforementioned clinics, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray."

Mr. McCague: I have a petition signed by residents of my riding protesting the unlawful abortions being performed at the Morgentaler clinic.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Gillies: I have a petition signed by 1,200 long-suffering residents of Brantford, which reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We request the government of Ontario to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre, from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre, immediately and to phase in further reductions over three years to 5.4 cents a litre by 1989."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr35, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge; and

Bill Pr37, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting The Public Utilities Commission of the City of Scarborough.

Your committee further recommends that Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the Windsor Youth Marching and Concert Band, be not reported.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Ms. Fish, on behalf of Mr. Brandt, from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. Offer and Mr. Poirier exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 43, An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act.

Mr. Brandt: I apologize to the House for the delay. I did want to speak further on this matter. I had covered a number of points, as members will recall, with respect to some of the difficulties of shoreline protection and the high water levels being experienced in the Great Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, to your knowledge, is the minister going to be in the House?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will see that he is called in. Meanwhile, I will listen attentively and convey the member's views.

Mr. Brandt: Will the Treasurer pass on to the minister all the comments I am about to make?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes. I will make notes.

Mr. Brandt: I am sure the Treasurer will. One of the points that is fundamental to this bill and that is conspicuous by its absence is the fact that there are no measures within the bill itself which provide any relief for municipalities to undertake any shoreline protection.

The minister has taken some initiatives with respect to unorganized municipalities and the provision for assistance to property owners who live in those municipalities. I complimented him on that when the bill was originally tabled in the House. That was a point that was overlooked in the previous administration -- I admit to that -- and it is a step in the right direction. However, a number of very serious shoreline problems are developing throughout the Great Lakes system and particularly in the area I identified in my initial statements when we first discussed this bill.

The problem on the Great Lakes has increased not only because of natural elements that are taking place in the Great Lakes region but also as a result of urban changes. The construction of both storm and sanitary sewers is an example, as is the development of drainage systems on agricultural land. These provide relief and provide a better quality of life for people who live on the land, but the fact of the matter is that the water that is discharged from the land moves far more quickly into the Great Lakes basin, into our rivers and into our lakes and thereby causes a quick elevation of water levels, which have now reached historical highs.

At one time, there was a belief that the Great Lakes ran on a cyclical seven-year period, that the water went up and down every seven years. It was relatively predictable; there was some shoreline damage, there was destruction that occurred and there was some loss of dollars in terms of lost property, but nothing even remotely resembling the level of devastation that has occurred over the course of the past couple of years.

3:50 p.m.

The historic highs we are experiencing at the moment are causing literally millions and millions of dollars worth of damage. It has been estimated that during the course of the past few years, on both the American and Canadian sides of the Great Lakes, primarily in Lake Erie and to a lesser extent, but equally destructively, in Lake St. Clair and along the Detroit and St. Clair rivers, there has been extensive shoreline damage in the amount of close to $1 billion.

Areas such as Long Point have lost literally thousands of acres of land because of waters that are no longer going through any kind of historical cycle, waters that are no longer reflecting the ups and downs that occurred over the course of the past few years, but are apparently going to remain at tremendously high levels as a direct result of some of the changes I mentioned.

Now that the minister is in the House, I will recap quickly what I have indicated. The problems of high waters are caused not only by increased precipitation, snowfall, rainfall and those kinds of things but also by urban development and the complexities that has brought about.

The government has to look beyond some of the measures on which I complimented the minister, if he will recall my opening comments when we originally discussed this bill. I applaud him for the two specific measures he has taken to improve and to strengthen the response of the government. I say that in a very charitable sense. He could have gone further.

It is now necessary for him, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) to sit down and come up with a game plan that will respond to a problem the likes of which we have never seen in the Great Lakes region, namely, historical high waters that are causing levels of destruction that are not simply a result of increased rainfall or snowfall in certain regions of our province.

One of the solutions is to look very carefully at the plan known as 25N, which deals with the Niagara Escarpment. It deals with a way in which we can increase the funnel, if you will, that is occurring at Niagara Falls, to allow more water to be released more quickly. The engineering estimates I have received indicate we can lower the Great Lakes level not by inches but by feet if we take very seriously the provisions outlined in 25N, of which I am sure the minister is aware, and allow for an increase in the outflow of water to lower the levels of the basin that are being blocked up behind the Niagara gorge.

I realize that is an extremely environmentally sensitive area. There would have to be extensive engineering studies. I also fully appreciate it is not a problem of this ministry alone. It will require detailed environmental research and planning. There will have to be extensive negotiations carried out with respect to our American friends.

I suggest to the minister this is one element of the bill that seems to be somewhat in shortfall with respect to what it should be addressing, namely, not only direct assistance to home owners but also more comprehensive assistance to municipalities directly and, further, to the kind of comprehensive assistance and change I suggest is absolutely essential if the government is going to bring about an overall improvement in the unacceptably high levels of water we are experiencing at present.

I could go on at some length, but I understand there may be other speakers who want to have input on this bill. I hope the minister will take my brief remarks very seriously. I will be happy to co-operate with him in any undertakings he may initiate in the direction I suggest, with respect to the Niagara gorge solution in particular.

Mr. Hayes: With regard to the comments made by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), I am pleased to hear the previous government indicating now that something can be done about regulating the Great Lakes. Back on June 6, 1985, I raised the question with the then Minister of Natural Resources. I was talking about the program of regulating the Great Lakes. At that time, it was mentioned that it would affect the water level by only one tenth of an inch. I am very pleased to find out now that people realize it is not strictly a natural phenomenon but also has a lot to do with some of the mistakes man has made and continues to make today.

Mr. Bernier: I want to join my colleague the member for Sarnia in complimenting the minister for bringing this bill forward.

The Deputy Speaker: Is this a comment or a question?

Mr. Bernier: It is a comment. I note there is some reference to inland lakes. I hope this bill will address the problems in northern Ontario. I am sure the minister is very much aware of the fluctuating water levels that occur, I think I can say, on a cyclical nature in northern Ontario. I refer to such water basins as the Lake of the Woods water basin, the Lake Nipigon water basin and the Lac Seul water basin, where we see water fluctuations, particularly in the Lac Seul area, of as much as 15 or 16 feet on a regular basis.

The minister will realize that in some years the tourist operations and the many people who have boathouses and docks on those large bodies of water find it impossible to get their boats or equipment into the waters on which they operate. It causes severe upheaval in their tourist business and they look for financial assistance. To this time, to my knowledge, there has not been any; however, I understand that sections of the bill address the question of people who have property on crown land and that funds and loans can be obtained directly from the ministry.

I believe there is in the bill a specific interest rate that has been established. It is a little high. It should be about half the prime rate. I do not know whether the minister would agree with me on that basis.

Mr. McLean: I want to comment briefly on the remarks of the member for Sarnia with regard to the breakwaters and some of the dikes this bill refers to.

Those sections of the bill with regard to loans concern me because there does not appear to be an upper limit anywhere. I was listening to the member for Sarnia mention that. There is the borrowing of money for the purposes of construction work, whether it be on crown land or other land.

I want to compliment the member for Sarnia on some of the remarks he made and the stand he has taken on this bill. I also want to compliment the ministry for initiating a program that will be used, and very substantially so.

I have some current concern with regard to the money. There does not appear to be any upper limit. I wonder whether the minister will indicate that there will be a maximum on a per capita basis or on some base. Of course, it would depend whether it is all shoreline in the municipality. It is different. I would like to hear the minister comment on that at a later time.

4 p.m.

Mr. Hayes: I would like to speak in favour of Bill 43, a bill that expands on the previous shoreline protection loan plan. Being able to raise or move a building is something for which shoreline residents have been looking for a long time, and I am sure my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) is very pleased that at last the unorganized municipalities will be able to be covered under this act. I know that is something for which he has been fighting for a long time.

I will mention a few of the problems with the existing shoreline protection program, and I implore the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to rectify them. If the problems are not corrected, this bill will not be worth the paper it is written on.

I will also mention a couple of comments that were made to me in December 1985 by some of the municipalities in my riding when they were faced with flooding problems. People were trying to get assistance and they did not know where to go. Some municipal clerks were saying they did not know where they stood, and the ratepayers did not know either, as far as the program was concerned.

In one municipality, there was no guarantee of the funds. They said the program was too vague. In another area, they were afraid the program was not going to be extended beyond March 1986. I am very pleased the program has been extended since that time. When they called the Ministry of Natural Resources office, they felt the staff would not talk to them. The people they called were wishy-washy and they had a hard time getting answers. I hope this program will be managed in future a lot better than it was in the past.

Individuals in municipalities are frustrated with the shoreline property assistance program set up to help property owners deal with damage caused by high waters. Because of the cumbersome way the program has been set up, people have no guarantee that, having done the work, the loan will be forthcoming from the government.

If property owners wish to build shoreline protection, they must first apply to the municipality. The municipal engineer or a representative comes to look at the proposed plan and advises whether it is likely to fall within the ministry guidelines. Individuals then must hire a contractor to have the work done and it is inspected by the Ministry of Natural Resources which makes a decision as to whether they qualify for the funds. At that point, if the ministry refuses a project, the property owner could be faced with a very large bank loan.

The municipalities wish to have an allocation of funds from the ministry. They want to know how much money the community can expect to be made available, instead of operating on a first-come, first-served basis. They feel this would alleviate some of the problems with the cumbersome paperwork and would reassure people about whether the funds will run out before the work is done.

The ministry has also failed to provide in the assistance program for property owners who cannot afford to take out a loan for flood protection. The serious problem this causes is that if one person cannot or does not put up a breakwall, the efforts of all the other people in that area will be futile. The water simply runs through the open space and on to the other properties.

There is another area of concern of which the minister should be aware. It has been raised a few times in the past as another problem the local municipalities are faced with. When debentures are issued by a municipality for loans under the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, the ceiling imposed by the Ontario Municipal Board in effect limits municipal borrowing for other capital works within that municipality. The Minister of Municipal Affairs should press cabinet to separate debenturing for lakeshore projects from those for other municipal capital works.

Not many people realize the extent of the damage in 1985 from high waters on the Great Lakes. In Essex county alone, it was estimated that the damage was close to $11 million and I am sure that is a very conservative estimate.

I want to point out to the minister that a report was done by municipalities on the estimate of some of the damages along the shorelines in Essex county alone. From Wheatley to Amherstburg, and that includes Pelee Island, there was $8,122,000 damage; on the Detroit River shoreline from Amherstburg to Riverside, excluding Windsor, it was $718,000; on the Lake St. Clair shoreline from Riverside to east of Stoney Point, $2,021,000; the Essex county total was $10,861,000. It is estimated that 80 per cent of the damage pertains to private property and 90 per cent of the private property damage pertains to residential buildings and breakwalls.

Even though I have concerns about the way the program was run in the past, and I hope the minister will take a look at these concerns, I compliment him on expanding the Shoreline Property Assistance Act. At the same time, I encourage him to implement the amendments as soon as possible. This program should be looked at as a short-term solution to the very serious problem of flooding along the Great Lakes shoreline.

I am sure in the ridings of many members, as in the area where I live, there is foreign ownership of some cottages along the shore. At this time we should be looking at the possibility of giving the municipality the power to force some of these people to protect their properties. If they refuse to do so, the municipality should have the right to go in and perform that work and to assess them on their taxes.

It needs someone in government to have the political will to look seriously at the real problem, which is that the level of the Great Lakes should be lowered. A lot of people have been living along the Great Lakes for many years. It is not a case of them happening to have moved there and now find they are faced with a lot of flooding problems in their houses. People make comments about some of these residents along the lake choosing to live there, but we should not look at it that way. These people are faced with a problem they did not create.

4:10 p.m.

A lot of suggestions have been made about lowering the Great Lakes levels. The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) has spoken of plan 25N but many other suggestions have been made about lowering the lake levels. I will mention just a couple.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has the same letter I have from the East Shore Coalition, written by Marv Ewing in Kingsville. One of the things we were talking about was that if one really wants to lower these levels, some are man-made and some are natural. Among those that are man-made, as the member for Sarnia mentioned, is the presence of more buildings, more housing going up and subdivisions put in. The water runs off faster than usual. There are other areas -- tiling, for example.

One of the other mistakes we have made is our loss of forestry, the deforestation. There are also wetlands. We have a serious loss of wetlands in this province. Even today wetlands are being filled in, and we should not allow this to happen, because that is also a factor. We all realize we have had more precipitation in the past couple of years than we had had for quite a while before that.

There are some ways of controlling the Great Lakes. If we started to control the levels of the Great Lakes, a lot of the programs we are talking about today probably would not even be necessary and, in the long run, we would save this province a lot of money.

We have some idea that if we close the Ogok and Longlac diversions until flooding is no longer a threat, we increase the flows in the Niagara River and Wetland Canal to obtain their maximum flow, which is 100,000 cubic feet per second, over the falls. The Black Rock Canal should be increased to its maximum. Those are a couple of emergency or short-term solutions to the problem.

What we really need to do is to bring those water levels back to the 1967 levels, and we should set up a controlling body that would have the authority to perform some of the following:

The body shall have the authority to increase or decrease any diversion in the Great Lakes basin that allows water into or out of any lake or river; it shall take weekly measures of flows and levels of each Great Lake; it shall receive weekly precipitation and runoff levels at each lake; it shall receive weekly evaporation levels of each lake; and it shall then make an evaluation and a projection of the surplus water above the 1967 level in each lake. The body shall now order the flow for each diversion to be set for the next week. This flow could be a reduction or an increase in cubic feet per second for the Wetland, Niagara, Chicago, Cornwall, Ogok, Longlac or Black Rock Canal diversions.

I could spend quite a bit of time discussing controlling the Great Lakes levels. I hope we can bring it up in this Legislature before too long.

I must compliment the minister again. I do not want to take too much time; it is important that we get this piece of legislation in as soon as possible as a short-term solution to the problem. I hope this minister and other ministers in the government, and also the Conservative Party, will support the efforts we have been making to regulate, control and lower the levels of the Great Lakes to the 1967 levels. I am sure that in the long term we will be able to save a lot of money for this province rather than have to put up dikes, beans and those kinds of things.

We are not just talking about people who live along the shoreline, because a lot of problems with sewers inland today are the result of the high water levels. Whenever we get a storm, people who live as far away as a mile from the lake find their storm sewers backed up because we do not have the capacity in some of our sewage treatment plants to take that extra water.

People along the shorelines move there to enjoy the shore and to enjoy getting in their boats or just sitting on the beaches. That is why they live there. We should reverse some of the mistakes that man has made over the years and get the water levels down and give back to the people their beaches, trees and wetlands.

Mr. Wildman: I do not wish to comment on the excellent speech of my colleague but I do wish to participate in the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine. If there are no comments or questions, we will go in rotation. The member for Brock.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to join in the debate and to speak in support of the Shoreline Property Assistance Amendment Act. It provides some additional relief for the people along the shores of the Great Lakes, particularly those whose properties have suffered severe damage in past storms. The act as presented will make loans available not only for repairing existing buildings but also for raising buildings and relocating them on either the same lot or an adjoining or nearby lot owned by the same individual.

Such an amendment is important relief in view of the very perilous condition of many buildings. These buildings are now at the very edge of the water line, partially hanging over cliffs. In many cases they are in a very perilous position, requiring that they be moved to a safer distance from the shoreline to protect them against further storms that will surely come, and also so that the banks might be improved.

The raising of buildings is very important as well because of the many low-lying and attractive areas we have along the Great Lakes. I think of one point where many cottages are built slightly above the water line. The one way of preserving those cottages, as the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) knows, is not to move them but to raise them somewhat higher.

I am pleased to see the coverage under this act is being extended to unorganized territories in the province. Water damage can be just as devastating in those areas as it can be in the industrial heartland of Ontario.

The act provides wider availability of financial help, although it is on a loan repayable basis, to riparian owners whose property is damaged by high water and wind. The focus for this act is particularly important to those people who live along the shores of Lake Erie, which is the area with which I have become most familiar.

Because of the lure of water and the beauty of the shoreline, the Great Lakes have attracted large settlements of people along their shores. As the late Senator Kerr of the US Senate once said, "People will always locate where there is an abundant supply of land, wood and water." In the Great Lakes basin we have been blessed with quantities of all three which are unparalleled anywhere else in the world. It has not been a surprise that the Great Lakes basin has become the industrial heartland of North America.

As I indicated, lately the inhabitants along the Great Lakes have experienced the ravaging effects of the water they chose to locate beside. The water and the wind have caused great damage and great concern and anxiety to these people.

4:20 p.m.

I read from a brief prepared by the township of Wainfleet. It is the Lakeshore Report on the result of the storm damage in December 1985. The township of Wainfleet has 14 miles of shoreline along Lake Erie which is almost entirely built up with cottages and permanent residential dwellings. I think 98 per cent of that shoreline is built up.

On December 2, that shoreline, as well as the rest of Lake Erie, experienced a very devastating storm.

"December 2, 1985: winds gusting to 70 miles per hour from the southwest raised lake levels as much as 10 feet at the east end of Lake Erie. Record highs have been set, and at Buffalo, a new record high of an instantaneous level of 580.68 feet was established. Extensive flooding occurred along the easterly end of the lake and the upper Niagara River."

The International Joint Commission's publication, Focus, on the Great Lakes water quality, indicates that fluctuations in lake levels may occur short term, seasonally or long term. The experience now is that the Great Lakes levels have reached a position that is likely to remain constant for at least the next 100 years.

This theory in the past that we have had about there being seven-year or five-year cycles, as the cottagers have talked about, is not the reality. The fact is that we have, as the member says, a very high, escalating water condition and great relief is needed.

I was talking about Focus on the Great Lakes. It states in here that, "a storm on December 2, 1985, tipped Lake Erie towards Buffalo, New York, causing a short-term difference of 16 feet in the lake level."

One of the aggravating aspects of the Lake Erie water is that Lake Erie is the shallowest of the Great Lakes, it is a very shallow lake, and it has a bathtub effect. A storm can, in effect, blow the water to one side of the lake so it can rise to extreme levels on one side and be almost dry where it once was wet on the other side.

As I indicated, the Great Lakes are a great natural resource for us to enjoy and we must be sure to keep the lakes for our enjoyment. The Great Lakes contain 95 per cent of the fresh water in North America, a substantial amount.

The storm that occurred in December 1985 along the north shore of Lake Erie caused $100 million in property damage from Fort Erie to Dunnville. As I mentioned, in the town of Wainfleet, the damage along its 14 miles of coastline is just less than $1 million per mile.

In addition to damage to beaches and to buildings, there was substantial damage done to sewers and roads, approximating some $400,000. That is one of the areas that will have to addressed, and I note that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has indicated that additional grants to municipalities may still be made -- I am reading from a release -- "in cases where the cost of restoring or protecting essential services would place an undue financial burden on local taxpayers." One of the direct results of a storm is the damage to the physical assets of the municipality.

One of the other things that municipalities must be concerned about is assessment appeals. As I mentioned earlier, there was $100-million worth of damage from Fort Erie to Dunnville.

Regarding the 14-mile Wainfleet area, reading from the report of the township of Wainfleet, it states: "Since there are so many applications to council for reduction of tax under section 496 of the Assessment Act for assessment reductions and deletions, it is possible and the potential exists that the municipality could stand to lose as much as $3 million, which equals approximately $345,000 in assessment and could represent as much as $75,000 in tax for the year 1986; apportioned as $19,000 to the township of Wainfleet, $17,000 to the regional municipality of Niagara and $39,000 to the school board."

This small municipality would have a difficult time withstanding the loss of such tax revenues. That was the estimate made at the time, and I am sure the damage may go much higher. The damage to the shoreline is not only to private properties and residences but also to breakwalls. Perhaps worst of all may be the damage to beaches that have taken hundreds of years to build up and may now be gone for ever.

I refer to a very famous summer area, perhaps one of the greatest natural parks in North America, Sherkston Beaches, which is located in the riding of the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty). It consists of two miles of natural beaches, a large lake which was formerly a quarry, surrounded by 750 acres of property. Sherkston Beaches was recently purchased by a company owned by Glen Maxwell and Tom Collins. This park has been very popular not only with people living in the Niagara Peninsula but also those in the rest of Ontario, New York state, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other surrounding states.

To give members an example of its size, there were 25,000 camping permits issued in 1985 for the 5,000 campsites in this great park. They average four people to a permit, so the number of people occupying campsites in this Sherkston Beaches property would be 100,000 in 1985. That may be impressive in itself, but in addition to that, between 200,000 and 250,000 people visited the park as day visitors last year. The park is open year round, with the peak time from April through September.

One of the great assets of this park was the two miles along the Lake Erie shoreline -- probably two miles of the finest beach one could find anywhere in North America. That beach is gone. The waves have picked it up and it is gone for ever. There is still some sand along the shoreline where one could sit and watch the lake, but the long expanse of sandy bottom leading into the lake has been dug out, taken away, and all that remains is a very rocky shoreline.

4:30 p.m.

According to an official at Sherkston Beaches, the government has indicated the cost to restore some of the damage done to the park site is approximately $2 million. Apparently Maxwell and Collins have already spent $500,000 to restore some of the campsites and try to salvage some permanent bookings for the current summer. Because of its popularity, people bring their campers in May, treat the area as their summer cottage and stay until the fall. In any event, accommodating the people will be impossible this year, and they have noted that the beach area has been cut down by 95 per cent. That is just some of the devastation that is taking place along the shores of Lake Erie.

A little earlier, the member for Sarnia referred to Long Point, and this may be one of the greatest losses the people of Ontario will have endured as a result of this storm. Long Point may be one the most natural wildlife habitats left in North America. Formed over the past 6,000 years and stretching 29 miles into Lake Erie, the first five miles are inhabited and settled with mainly summer cottages. The balance of Long Point Provincial Park, 27 miles, has been kept since its inception as a natural habitat. Long owned by the Long Point Co., much of it was turned over to the government of Ontario, provided it be continued in its natural state.

Over the years, hunters have enjoyed the almost unlimited number of ducks, geese and other wildfowl that spend time in the fall at Long Point on their way south. Fishermen fish that great Long Point Bay where bass, both largemouth and smallmouth, and perch abound, and naturalists come to watch the birds and to try to identify the many varieties at Long Point. Of course, there are also the beaver and just about every type of wildlife one can imagine. But 40 per cent of that great natural preserve was destroyed in the storm of December 2, 1985. Parts of the point had been breached by water and as a result the threat to the continued preservation of Long Point is a real one.

I was going to explain some of the beauties of Long Point, the types of birds and wildlife that have lived there for generations and that are now being threatened by the high water of Lake Erie. Suffice to say it would be a tragic loss to the people of Ontario if this great wilderness area were lost for ever.

It is interesting that we talk often about preserving our wetlands -- and we are very concerned about the wetlands -- to preserve our game and our wildlife. Normally, we think in terms of private owners or people filling in the wetlands to provide additional land to develop for housing or recreation. Of course, the reverse is happening in this case. Our wetlands are disappearing by becoming too wet, by being flooded over, and it is a tragic loss.

With respect to Long Point, Hastings Drive, one of the last roads leading into the end of Long Point, was developed with a great series of cottages. Fifty-five of those cottages washed away in the storm of December 2, 1985; they are gone. However, many of the remaining cottages will be able to benefit from this act by being raised. The level of the water has risen, and many of the people there are taking remedial action by raising the level of their cottages.

Dr. Joe Pacsuta, a member of the North Shore Coalition, a group of cottagers and property owners along Lake Erie, has vividly described in a letter the damage that has occurred on Lake Erie.

He refers to "the ruin of both public and private beaches; the erosion of thousands of acres of prime real estate; the destruction of property -- breakwalls, homes and cottages; the loss of contents and personal effects, never to be replaced; the subsequent loss of property taxes and assessment; the depressed real estate values; the collapse of marinas and their facilities -- docks, equipment and boats -- resulting in loss of income, and some will never open their doors again; the irreplaceable loss of precious sand dunes, beaches and bluffs" -- Long Point is an ideal example of that, as well the Sherkston Beaches -- "the destruction of conservation areas, the natural spawning and breeding grounds for fish and wildlife; the horrendous expense to the municipalities for loss and replacement of roadways, for pumping of sewers, basements and entire subdivisions, for massive cleanup of parks and streets and repairs to dikes, ramps, docks and floodgates; the loss to the farmers of precious topsoil, their crops and property; the contamination of their drinking water and the ruin of their fields."

Worst of all is the knowledge that storms such as the one experienced on December 2, 1985, will strike again. We cannot wait. We must develop better control of these unprecedented high water levels. Some will say that high water levels cannot be controlled, that they are evolutionary and are due to cooler weather and slower precipitation. But it is incumbent on us in society and on this Legislature to try to do whatever we can to lower the high water level of the Great Lakes.

Again, I go back to the township of Wainfleet's report. The mayor of that town, Stan Pettit, and his council authorized the study. I believe they sent a copy to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître). They are urging this government to consider and implement the recommendations they have set out in their study. They talk about the impact on spinoffs of high water and state "there are many small business and trades which obtain most of their income from the lakeshore area, such as several of the small grocery stores and fast food outlets along the Lake Erie shoreline." This is in special reference to Wainfleet, but I am sure it applies wherever there is high water.

"If it were not for the homes and cottages, many of these small businesses would be closed permanently, as their livelihood depends on the seasonal fluctuation of tourists, traffic and cottage users. As an example, Long Beach in the summertime is plagued by traffic jams, congested streets and parking problems, jammed beaches and pedestrian traffic comparable to Yonge Street in Toronto on a busy shopping day. This is compared to the winter, when it has often been said that someone could shoot a cannon down the main streets of Long Beach and hit nobody.

"Socially, the lakeshore from the month of June to the end of September is a small city, interwoven by recreation, cooler temperatures and a relaxing attitude. The protection of the cottages and residences along the lakeshore is necessary for the very existence of the township's tax base and the continued existence of several small business that survive only because of the influx of summer visitors."

4:40 p.m.

It is important that we do what we can to protect the shorelines of our Great Lakes from the damage caused by high water. Not only is it necessary for those people who live along the shores, but also it is necessary for those of us who do not live there but who periodically enjoy the benefits of swimming at the beaches, going for a boat ride or just visiting along the shores of the lakes in the summertime.

In the regulations of the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, the allowance for building repairs, raising or relocation is limited to $20,000. In view of this inflationary period, I suggest the minister consider raising that limit to $40,000. Perhaps he should also consider increasing the amount allowable for dike or shoreline protection from $500 per metre, as it is currently, to $750 per metre. The minister might also consider a reduction in the interest rate. With interest rates falling, consideration should be given to adjusting the interest rate to somewhat below the current eight per cent, which was set when interest rates were substantially higher.

We talked about loans for dikes, breakwaters and groynes. One of the provisions in the act we are debating today would require an inspector to inspect the proposed work, especially with respect to the compatibility of the work with adjacent properties. I suppose the answer to this is not a simple one. So often an individual will construct a very formidable breakwater in front of his property but, because the neighbours on one side or the other do not do the same, the water will get in behind and destroy the breakwater which was properly installed.

Under the act, after the work is completed, the inspector will file a certificate and money will then be advanced. That is a very proper procedure. If the government is going to be making money available to injured parties, it should make sure, for their benefit as well as for the government's, that the work is done properly and that the money is advanced only when the work is completed.

The Minister of Natural Resources has announced a shoreline management review committee to investigate long-term approaches to shoreline management. That is a step in the right direction, but it has to be followed by more steps.

I hope the government and the Minister of Natural Resources are aware that the high water levels are expected to remain not only this year but perhaps for as long as 100 years. The steps taken in the Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act are welcome and very useful for those people but tend to be of a short-term nature. They help fix the damage, but they do not get to the root cause, and I appreciate they probably were not intended to.

One thing the committee formed by the Minister of Natural Resources could do would be to look at plan 25N, of which I am sure the minister is aware, and perhaps look at it in view of the damage that has been done and is threatening to be done to the shoreline of Lake Erie.

As I am sure the minister is aware, Lake Ontario also has a high water level but it is not as critical as the high water on Lake Erie. What has to be done is for this government to look at the inflow into Lake Erie and see whether any steps can be taken to moderate or restrict that, and we must certainly look at the outflow and see what can be done to increase that.

The 25N plan basically involves blasting a rock ledge several hundred feet long, to a depth of 14 feet, in the vicinity of the Peace Bridge to increase the outflow. The suggestion is that control mechanisms can be put in to moderate the outflow to make sure it does not reduce the ultimate level of Lake Erie beyond what is reasonable.

It is acknowledged that, whatever remedial steps are taken, it will take a long time to see any real effects, but the steps must be taken now because if they are not, the damage done on December 2 is going to be repeated, and probably next time with far greater consequences than the first time.

Many properties along that lakeshore have been put in peril. As I indicated, where sand beaches were before there are now boulders. There are areas where boathouses have been filled with boulders as a result of this storm and cottages have been moved. We do not have a great amount of time to remedy the situation.

I urge the government to move quickly on long-term solutions. A review and implementation of 25N will be a welcome step. I also recommend that the government adopt the recommendations contained in the township of Wainfleet's Lakeshore Report.

Many bordering states in the United States, such as the state of Michigan, have urged the International Joint Commission to study the Great Lakes water and have urged the states to convey their concerns to the US federal government.

I urge this government to raise the level of concern to deal with the International Joint Commission with the Canadian government, its US counterpart and the states bordering the Great Lakes. I know the Minister of Natural Resources, with his charming personality, would be very persuasive in so doing.

The time has come when we cannot wait for three years. Three years is too late. We have to get some long-term solutions to this problem in place very quickly. Some of the damage to our shoreline property is now irreparable. We cannot replace it, nor can we repair it. But let us repair what we can.

A little earlier, the minister was rubbing his thumb and index finger together suggesting that 25N would cost money. If steps like that are not taken, he will also be aware that the damage to the shoreline will far exceed what would be a moderate cost of instituting the 25N plan.

We do have a great natural resource in the Great Lakes, but we must work to enjoy it. I say to the Minister of the Environment that we must improve the quality of water. Many of these are long-term steps, but I am sure if we get started right away we will enjoy them a lot sooner than we might think.

Again, I am pleased to support Bill 43, An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, and I urge the government to get started immediately on long-term solutions to the high water problem that we now have.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Hayes: The member for Brock (Mr. Partington) was quoting Dr. Pacsuta, I believe, and I would like to comment. The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) brought up regulating the levels of the Great Lakes, and I am very pleased to hear a member of the previous government talking about it now. I am not sure whether plan 25N is the answer, but we should look at all avenues, including some of the things I mentioned in my remarks. There are other means of doing it.

At the same time, the member mentioned that the beaches are gone for ever and that we are always going to continue to have the high water levels. We have to change that attitude and say, "Let us control them and lower the Great Lakes levels."

It is very interesting that people have said in the past that we could not control lake levels. When Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, Lake Huron and Lake Superior, for example, have been at record highs and at the same time Lake Ontario has been low, that tells me they can be regulated.

All three parties should get together and look seriously at control of the Great Lakes water levels. There are a lot of ways and means of doing it. If we do not do that, we are going to be back here next year or the year after for another shoreline protection loan plan to allow the people to raise their dikes another foot or two, and I do not think we are ever going to solve that problem. We will never be able to see the shorelines from cottages along the shoreline. I do not own one, but I just want to make sure.

Anyway, I am glad to see the members of the Conservative Party are now willing to look at resolving the problem by lowering the levels of the Great Lakes.

Mr. Partington: I was speaking with respect to the destruction of the beaches. I used that example to urge the government on to action. The fact that we have this tremendous destruction is no excuse for not going further. We have to do it, and we have to do it quickly.

I was focusing on the Great Lakes. I know the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) will be speaking, but all waters are worthy of this act and all protection before us. Because of the high water levels in the recent storm activity, the focus is on the Great Lakes.

I suppose the advance of civilization, with its growth of population and industrialization, has forced the storm runoff to be diverted very quickly into the channels. We have aggravated the situation -- unwittingly, of course; nevertheless we have done it. Now we have to reverse some of our civilized habits. I know we are up to the task.

Some people say it is a natural development. That may be true in part, but as one member has mentioned, there are certain things we can do; perhaps stopping diversions for a time and studying the situation to try to make sure that, to the extent we can, we control this very important part of our environment. I am sure we will.

I think we have the ability and the foresight, and we are getting the resolve. It is becoming such an important issue that we cannot ignore it. I look forward to seeing us take further steps to ensure that we get the high water problem of the Great Lakes under control.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate in a relieved and happy state, because as the minister knows, I have been campaigning ever since last fall to have the legislation amended to ensure that the residents of unorganized communities in northern Ontario will be able to participate in the program in the same way that residents of municipalities in other parts of the province have been able to participate. I congratulate the minister for introducing amendments that will make this possible.

I do not wish to prolong the debate. Since last fall, I have been trying to get this matter brought before the House, and I do not want it to take any longer than necessary. I concur with the comments made by a number of members with regard to the overall, ongoing problem we have on the Great Lakes and, for that matter, on other bodies of water throughout parts of the province.

I want to make a few comments regarding this program. I have with me a document produced by Dr. Klugman, the regional director, northeastern region, of the Ministry of Natural Resources. In this document, which deals with shore protection methods, Dr. Klugman states:

"As you are aware, the levels of Lake Superior and Lake Huron are at record levels. Recorded damage resulting from high water levels has been extensive along the east shore of Lake Superior and the north shore of Lake Huron and Manitoulin Island."

In another release, Dr. Klugman states:

"The province's emergency shoreline assistance program was established in June 1985 when record levels were reached on the Great Lakes, causing extensive damage to residential, commercial and recreational waterfront properties. Our ministry expects the levels of Lake Huron and Lake Superior to exceed the 1985 record levels and in response to the severity of the extending situation, the northeastern region" of the ministry "will be offering, at no cost to the public, technical advice on floodproofing and erosion protection techniques to affected property owners."

The statement by Dr. Klugman that he expects the levels on Lake Huron and Lake Superior to exceed the 1985 levels this year is very alarming. For that reason, I welcome the extension of this program beyond the original expiry date and the fact that changes have been made to allow for relocation and to raze buildings, but particularly to allow for assistance through the loan program to be available to residents of unorganized communities.

We have heard a lot in this debate about the problems on the lower lakes. I certainly recognize them. The problems on Lake Erie, for instance, have been well documented by members. However, we should recognize this is a problem throughout the Great Lakes system. Our Great Lakes are perhaps the greatest natural resource available to the central part of North America. They are a source of great beauty and great grandeur, but they also can be a source of great danger.

There have been a lot of references in this debate to the storm on Lake Erie in December 1985. I think back in my area to a major storm that took place many years ago on Whitefish Bay on Lake Superior when the Edmund Fitzgerald went down with tremendous loss of life and property, an event that has been preserved for us in our folklore through the wonderful song by Gordon Lightfoot. I remember the tremendous damage that was done to shorelines in one short storm; so I sympathize with the people on Lake Erie who have experienced a similar situation.

5 p.m.

I emphasize that the residents along the upper lakes, whether it is all the way up to the Lakehead or whether it is on the eastern shore of Lake Superior, in the area of Batchawana, Chippewa, Goulais River or Gros Cap, are experiencing serious high-water problems as well. The argument is always raised with regard to regulation of the water levels that we cannot release too much water from the upper lakes because the residents along Lake Erie, for instance, are already experiencing serious problems and if we released more water from the upper lakes, we would drown those residents and their property.

The residents along the upper lakes understand the responsibilities of the regulators. They understand their responsibility as good neighbours and residents of this province. They do not want to impose a disaster of any greater magnitude on the residents of the lower lakes, but they have serious concerns about the methods of regulation or lack of regulation of the lakes that have produced this situation.

It is an even more localized situation in that one could argue that, in order to protect the shoreline of Batchawana, Goulais River or Gros Cap, we should release more water through the St. Marys River and in that way we might raise the level of George Lake and hurt the residents of Echo Bay or St. Joseph Island, who are already experiencing high water levels. The whole North Channel of Lake Huron down to Manitoulin is experiencing difficulties as well.

I should relate the situation that a constituent of mine described to me recently. He and his wife have owned a cottage on a small island off St. Joseph Island for many years. Water levels have fluctuated around the island -- the old argument of a seven-year cycle and so on -- in the past. However, during the last few years it is no longer a cycle but rather a spiral. It always ends up higher than it was before and it never seems to recede when it gets to the end of the so-called seven-year cycle. It continues to go up.

Right now that property owner no longer has an island. He still has a cottage but he has no island. His cottage is on short stilts and he had a good amount of land around it. Now he has water right under it and no land. He has to go to his door by boat. If the water levels increase -- that is, if more water is released from Lake Superior into the North Channel and if the St. Joseph channel goes up any more -- this man will lose his cottage. It is not much good to him now as it is. He does not want to know how we are going to keep levels about where they are now; he wants to know how those levels are going to be lowered, and many other property owners in our area have the same problem.

Why should the residents of Gros Cap, west of Sault Ste. Marie, experience damage because we are trying to protect property owners downstream, who are also experiencing damage, from further damage if the damage they are experiencing is going to be ongoing? It is not a short-term situation that this bill will respond to and assist them in repairing the damage; it is going to be year after year. I submit that while we welcome this bill and its introduction in this House, it is far from enough.

I do not know who is at fault, if anyone is at fault. I do not know whether it is the International Joint Commission, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the federal government or the provincial government, or whether it is a shared problem. I suspect it is a shared problem.

The regulation of the locks on the St. Marys River has a tremendous effect on the water levels of Lake Superior. To have it argued that we must not allow more water to flow out of the big lake because we are trying to protect people in the lower lakes is not enough, particularly when I hear comments to the effect that water levels on Lake Ontario are low. They are certainly not at the record levels we are experiencing on the other lakes, even Lake Superior. I do not know what the answer is.

I welcome the proposal made by the Minister of Natural Resources to appoint a committee to look at the overall problem. Through its deliberations, I hope it will be able to come up with proposals for changes in the way we regulate the water levels. There may be more rainfall; there may be cooler temperatures and less evaporation. There are obviously natural causes, but many people suspect there are regulatory problems as well.

In Chippewa last winter, residents in that area had ice in their boathouses, garages and basements. They were lucky we had a long, slow thaw this spring, or their buildings would have disappeared. Are they going to experience ice next winter and the winter after in their buildings?

I recognize that many of the comments have not been directly on the principle of the bill. They deal with water levels, and the principle of this bill is to extend the assistance beyond the expiry date, to extend it to raising and relocating buildings and also to respond to my concern about the unorganized communities. For that reason, I welcome it.

We have had extensive flooding in many parts of the lakes over the years. This bill assists property owners to make repairs when they have experienced flooding, and it is a good thing. However, even the minister who is administering it and bringing it before the House will admit it is a stopgap measure. It does not deal with the problems that cause so much damage.

I was disappointed last January, I believe, after the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced they would be extending the program and making changes, when the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs decided that until the legislation amending the law to allow for people in unorganized communities to apply as individuals was passed, they would not even accept applications. Frankly, I do not understand that approach.

It led me to meet with the minister to encourage him to bring in the legislation. Again, I welcome the fact he has done that, but for the life of me I do not understand why, when the bureaucrats understood there was going to be a change in the law, they would not at least accept the applications and keep them on file so that they could be processed as quickly as possible once the legislation was through. I suppose it is only bureaucracy and that is the way it operates, but it is certainly not adequate, in my view.

Dr. Klugman, the regional director from the Ministry of Natural Resources, stated in a release on June 2, "We consider this first-time-ever extension of the shoreline property assistance program to unorganizated areas" -- I repeat that, "unorganizated areas" -- "along with organized areas in northern Ontario will result both in immediate and effective solutions to the very serious high-water problems along the upper Great Lakes."

5:10 p.m.

I am sure the ministry official meant unorganized, not unorganizated. What I am concerned about is that he says the extension "will result both in immediate and effective solutions to very serious high-water-level problems along the upper Great Lakes." It did not result in immediate assistance, because the Ministry of Municipal Affairs would not process applications until the legislation had been passed.

Also, even when this legislation is passed and loans will be made available to people living in unorganized areas, it will not be an effective solution to the very serious high-water-level problems in the upper Great Lakes. Therefore, I am disappointed in this release by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Klugman, although he obviously needs a proofreader, but I do not understand how he can say this legislation is going to deal with the high water levels. It will help people get capital to make some repairs, but unless we do something about the high water levels, as my colleagues have indicated, more and more repairs are going to have to be done and this program will have to become an ongoing one.

I also hope the minister will explain exactly how the residents of unorganized areas will be able to apply and have their applications processed once this legislation is passed, because there seems to be some confusion about who they should contact and who is going to handle this.

They have been told they should talk about problems to the various Ministry of Natural Resources officials, who might be able to give them engineering advice on what works might be necessary. However, when I talked to the regional engineer in Sudbury, who is a very competent and helpful gentleman, he indicated he did not know which official in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is going to be responsible for processing the applications from unorganized areas.

In investigating this, I talked to Mr. Burton, the manager of municipal programs in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and asked when applications could be filed for assistance for shoreline damage in unorganized areas. He again said that no applications can be filed -- not even filed -- until the amendments are passed. Miss Shirin Pirani is collecting names and addresses to mail out applications as soon as the legislation is passed.

Frankly, I find that a little confusing. Residents in municipalities can make application through the municipal clerk, and we hope they will then get assistance. I hope that the minister will be able to make it clear how they should go about it in the case of unorganized communities and that he will be able to expedite the applications once the legislation is passed.

In my view, the changes that are proposed to the act will give a greater flexibility in finding the most practical and effective means of ameliorating the damage and the threat of future damage from high water levels to shoreline properties in both unorganized and organized areas.

The greatest change in this bill is that, for the first time, residents of unorganized areas will be able to get the same kind of assistance as residents of a municipality. I welcome the changes. I hope the passage of the bill can be expedited, and that the applications can be dealt with as quickly as possible once the bill is law.

However, I reiterate, this is a stopgap measure. If it is not to become an ongoing program, this government, in conjunction with the federal government, the International Joint Commission and our neighbours to the south, must move to implement engineering changes in the Great Lakes system to make it possible for us to release more water from the upper lakes and to get that water flowing through to the St. Lawrence system so that we do not have to continue harming properties on the upper lakes to protect people in the lower lakes from further damage, so that we can get the water through the system safely without damage and better regulate the levels on all the Great Lakes.

Mr. Partington: I wish to comment for two minutes on the member's statement. I agree with the member that in this very serious matter of wind and water damage, it is important that applications are processed as quickly and expeditiously as possible. Some of the people have life savings tied up in either a permanent home or a cottage property and when this type of tragedy strikes, it is important to assist them as quickly and generously as we can.

The question of water inflow-outflow is a dilemma. I do not advocate diverting water south of the border. I know the member did not talk about inflow-outflow, but one of the things we must guard against is diverting a natural resource to another country, in this case the United States, and giving it an international legal right to keep the flow going. We must guard against acting quickly on something such as that.

Mr. McLean: I want to talk about some of the comments made by the previous speaker. I want to touch on some of the additions and amendments to the bill. I think it is great. The member hit upon what I call the main issue, which is that we should do something about the water levels instead of repairing the damage after it is done.

In my riding, I have been dealing with the federal people from Peterborough on the water levels of Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe, up into Georgian Bay. I do not understand why the water levels cannot be controlled. Last night on television, we saw the waters of Wasaga Beach going right over the breakwall into the buildings. There surely is a way the water could have been lowered to prevent that occurrence.

We are debating a bill that will repair and fix up after the damage is done. It is like shutting the barn door after the horse has gone. The honourable member was asking why we are not looking at how we are going to control these levels, how we are going to solve the problem in the future, because this really will not solve future problems. That is what I believe he was getting at and that is what we have to do. The Minister of Natural Resources should be doing something about it.

Mr. Wildman: I thank the members for their comments on my presentation.

I hope the member for Brock was not intimating that the GRAND Canal project might be one way of dealing with the high water levels on the Great Lakes. If anybody knows anything about that proposal, which is advocated by our negotiator on free trade, among others, it is to divert water from James Bay into the Great Lakes and use them as a conduit for water into the United States.

If we convert James Bay into a freshwater lake and transfer water into the Great Lakes, we will flood most of the shoreline properties along the Great Lakes. The GRAND Canal project would be a disaster for the people who own properties along the Great Lakes. I hope anybody who is really concerned about properties along the Great Lakes will be opposed to the GRAND Canal project.

5:20 p.m.

I welcome the support of the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) and I agree with his comments. I remind him, though, that in response to the question raised by my friend the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) on June 6, 1985, prior to the change in government, the then Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), indicated, "We are talking about very minimal amounts, less than tenths of an inch, and when we talk about the wind and other problems, what the member refers to is a very minimal part of the problem."

I think it is unfortunate the previous government did not consider this as serious a problem as it is. I welcome their conversion now. I welcome their support for doing something about the water levels on the Great Lakes. It is unfortunate that we did not move much sooner.

Mr. Partington: On a point of privilege or order or information, one of the three, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr. Partington: As a point of clarification perhaps, there was a slight implication that I might be in favour of water diversion. I said I am not; we must guard against exporting that natural resource.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Bernier: I want to add a few points to my earlier comments and I do not want to repeat what has been adequately expressed by my colleagues the member for Brock, the member for Sarnia and the member for Simcoe East. They have touched on some very sensitive and some very important points.

I want to remind the members that this bill was part of the efforts of the previous administration. It was terminated in 1982 because of a lack of participation. It was reintroduced in 1985 for one year because of some widespread flooding and we are pleased the minister has now seen fit to extend it, I hope, indefinitely. I make that point to let members know the sensitivity of the previous administration was very real. It was positive and the minister has built on a good base.

The point I want to address and I want to compliment the minister on is moving to provide loans in territory without municipal organization. This is of concern to me, coming from northern Ontario where we have a vast area that has no municipal organization, and he will take the responsibility of making those loans available. I suspect it is not going to be available to such people as tourist operators for their houseboats and for their dockage, which gets flooded out and gets ruined because of the cyclical nature of raising and lowering of the water systems in northern Ontario on the Lake of the Woods, Lac Seul and Lake Nipigon watersheds.

This is a regular problem that is cyclical. It causes a great deal of hardship, particularly to the tourist industry, both in high-water times and in low-water times, and as the member for Simcoe East has correctly pointed out, there is a strong desire among northerners for a greater effort to control the level of waters in our area.

Ontario Hydro has moved into many of these areas. The development of hydro power comes first and the effect of high water to a land owner seems to come second. In fact, even the fish population is affected by the fluctuating water levels and it is a concern to us who live in those areas.

I have appealed to the Lake of the Woods control board on a number of occasions to stop the massive fluctuations of water levels. One sees 11-foot fluctuations on Lac Seul alone and on the Lake of the Woods water basin it is not unusual to see a water fluctuation of five to six feet. This causes some very severe hardship to those people involved in the tourist industry. I hope the minister, perhaps not today but in the future when amendments come, will consider doing something for those people who have a real hardship.

I know the township of Red Lake, which has some land on Red Lake, suffered some real damage a few years ago with regard to high levels and had some difficulty convincing the authorities at that time that it would qualify for some assistance.

I note that subsection 12(6) states, "A loan under this part shall not exceed the amount prescribed." I believe the amount prescribed was set back in 1981 at about $20,000. We think that should be increased. That is five or six years ago. An increase to about $40,000 would be a reasonable increase.

The adjustment of the interest rate has not moved with the regular interest rates as we know them. They were last adjusted back in 1985, so I think there is room for some examination there to give the prime interest rate on these loans over a 10-year period.

I pass those thoughts on to the minister. I again compliment him for bringing this bill forward. There is obviously some room for improvement, but it is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Pierce: As the minister is aware, I wrote to him early last summer requesting that the bill be extended to cover unorganized municipalities and communities and lakes outside the Great Lakes bordering Ontario, recognizing there is more to the waterways of Ontario than the Great Lakes. There are many people in the great province of Ontario who in one form or another, for reasons of work ethic or recreation, make use of the great, wide waterways we have available to us.

In my correspondence, I asked the minister if the program would be extended to include the unorganized municipalities, and that has now been included in the act. I appreciate that change.

What I see still lacking is an item that is not covered under the act and is not part of the act, and that is the policy with respect to who can actually qualify for assistance. That is a policy within cabinet. It is not part of the written act. It is within the mandate of the minister and cabinet to say what the act will actually cover and to whom it will be available. I suggest to the minister, as I said earlier, that there are a number of industries, fishing industries, tourist operators and private cottage owners, affected by high water levels throughout Ontario.

As was stated earlier in the debate, there are many other areas that suffer high water levels as a result of the high water levels that are experienced on the Great Lakes. The water levels above the Great Lakes are controlled in order to keep them from escalating and making the water levels even higher in the Great Lakes. As a result, the water is backed up into a system that cannot handle it. The results of that backup and controls are felt by the industry and private camp owners.

5:30 p.m.

I am sure the minister is aware, because of the extensive amount of travel he has been able to do in the past year throughout the province, that a number of the lakes in northern Ontario are large bodies of water and are subject to the saucer effect felt on large lakes under high wind conditions. High water levels, along with high winds, can only mean shoreline and property damage in a lot of areas.

It is fine for us to say we recognize the need to protect and assist the abutting property owners on the Great Lakes, but there is more to this great province than the shorelines of the Great Lakes. We have many inland waters that require the same assistance and attention the government is prepared to give to those residents and businesses along the Great Lakes. The impact to a property owner of a storm on Lake of the Woods is as great as the impact of a storm on Lake Erie or Lake Ontario. It does not matter which shoreline one is on if one bears the brunt of a storm.

For that reason, as much as I appreciate what the minister has tried to do in the bill by extending the program and by including unorganized municipalities, he has it within his power and in his forceful manner, along with the assistance of other ministers of cabinet, to include the lakes other than the Great Lakes.

By not doing that, this government is saying: "We agree to a two-tiered system. We agree to provide for some but not for all. Where the majority of people are, we can provide assistance; but where the minority of people are, we are not prepared to provide that assistance."

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is the way it was before.

Mr. Pierce: I have been led to believe things are different nowadays, but I am afraid that has not been amplified in the changes to this bill. The change to this bill has been one that recognizes unorganized municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is a big step forward.

Mr. Pierce: It may be a big step forward, but it is a very small step forward when one considers the number of unorganized municipalities that are outside the shorelines of the Great Lakes. This is a vast province. As is recognized by all members, the water that eventually finds its way into the Great Lakes comes from a large area in northwestern Ontario.

The minister has also neglected to address the problem that there are waterways within this province whose lake levels are controlled by the International Joint Commission, in which the province is a partner. Ontario provides something like 11 per cent of the funding to assist in the operation of the IJC. We know high water levels on the Great Lakes affect the high water levels of the lakes that contribute to the high water on the Great Lakes. In many cases, those inner lakes are under the control of the International Joint Commission.

The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is providing funds to promote the tourism industry in northwestern and northern Ontario. In many cases, the funds that are being provided to promote the tourism industry and the funds that are derived from that industry are turned back to the tourist operator to provide whatever measures of control he can to try to protect the shoreline and his beach areas to promote his industry further and bring new dollars into the province.

It is my belief that any assistance that would be forthcoming under the program for shoreline protection would be money well spent. Certainly, an industry cannot be promoted if it can be wiped off the shore of a lake by one storm. Any storm can bankrupt small tourist operators in particular.

Last summer I visited a camp on Lake of the Woods. That waterway, which was at probably its highest level for many years, was experiencing severe winds from the west. The camp owner, at his own expense, had hauled in thousands of yards of rock and dumped them on the beach to try to protect not only the beach shoreline he had but also his cabins and outbuildings. He had lost his dock, and he had lost his access to fresh water for his camp water system.

There is nothing that grips the heart more than seeing an individual who has put into the camp not only all the resources he has made through its operation but also the resources he makes as an engineer on the Canadian National Railways during the summer and winter months. He puts into that camp every nickel and dime of the wages he gets from another source to improve his operation but, because of the high water levels, he sees the whole thing being washed out into the lake. On this day, his wife, his family and his father were trying in some small way to protect the camp from being wiped out into the lake.

If we are here to seriously assist in the development and in the continual growth of industry and to promote the use of privately and collectively owned camps, we have to be prepared to promote and initiate programs that are available throughout the province.

As I said earlier, the high water levels that are experienced on the Great Lakes continue to plague the people on the inland waterways because those waters are held back to protect the water systems farther down. It is undue hardship not only for anybody who is affected by part of the shoreline but also for someone who has to become personally and financially responsible for any rebuilding or the provision of any breakwaters necessary to protect an investment.

5:40 p.m.

The minister has made a step in the right direction by including the unorganized municipalities, but he has missed a step in terms of the policy of the government -- again, I emphasize it is not part of the act as to who has the coverage or who can receive assistance; it is nothing more than the policy of the government -- which is saying it is not prepared to assist storm-damaged shores on any waters other than those of the Great Lakes.

Again, that indicates this government, in establishing its policies, is prepared to establish a tiered system of the haves and the have-nots, the wills and the will-nots, where it will be prepared to assist some and not others. We are providing where there are masses; but where there are small groups of people in the unorganized municipalities, we are not prepared to assist them. It appears to make no difference to the government that a storm can cause as much hardship to a person on an inland lake as it can to somebody on the Great Lakes.

As I said earlier, I am sure the minister comes with much credibility and has the power within his own cabinet to ask for the extension of the program to include all the waters of the great province. I do not think that is asking for any more than is needed by the people who, as I said earlier, have made major financial commitments in promoting the tourist industry and other industries that are established on the many lakes and the large lakes that we have within the province.

Once the House recesses for the summer and the minister has an opportunity to visit throughout northern and northwestern Ontario and sees the effect that high water levels have had on some of the major camp owners and some of the major tourist industries, I hope he will come back fast and without any hesitation and ask his fellow cabinet ministers to extend the program of shoreline assistance to the lakes that flow into the Great Lakes. We know we have to provide some form of assistance to these people.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough the need for this program, through the policy of the government, to be expanded to include the districts and communities I represent as well as the many communities and districts throughout northern Ontario.

I only hope that in the minister's travels this summer he has an opportunity to see and to talk to and to discuss with people who have experienced large costs in trying somehow to protect the shoreline from damages that are created by the high water levels that are caused because we hold the water back to protect the shorelines of the Great Lakes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of convenience perhaps: The House leaders have agreed that a bill that was ordered for third reading earlier this afternoon might better go into committee. I wonder if we might have unanimous consent for reversion to motions.

Agreed to.

MOTION

STATUS OF BILL 7

Mr. Nixon moved that the order for third reading of Bill 7 be discharged and the bill be referred to the committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Hayes: The member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) spoke about other bodies of water that are affected and said the program should be expanded to accommodate them. I agree with those comments, but I have to look at the bill.

Maybe the minister can address this and clarify it, because under definitions, it says "`damage' means damage caused by high water levels of or the impact of ice on a lake, river or other body of water or by damage to or erosion of the shore of a lake, river or body of water caused by the elements, and `potential damage' has a corresponding meaning."

When the minister makes his remarks, perhaps we will get the answers to the questions of the member for Rainy River. Perhaps his concern can be answered at that time. I am hoping it does go to accommodate those areas the member for Rainy River has raised today.

Mr. Partington: I want to underline the comments made by the member for Rainy River about the need for community protection and community support, certainly in the Lake Erie area. The Port Colborne council passed a resolution on April 28 basically urging the federal and provincial governments and the International Joint Commission to take immediate action to work for a short-term solution and long-term plans to control the level of water in Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes.

Resolutions have also been passed by the city of Welland supporting the North Shore Coalition in efforts to secure lower lake levels. Similar resolutions have been passed by the city of Welland, the town of Haldimand, the town of Fort Erie and the town of Dunnville. It is of vital concern to communities for their citizens, for their tax base and for their services.

I support the member for Rainy River, my friend to the right, when he says the act in its general form is applicable to all damage caused by the natural elements throughout Ontario. I hope the minister will assure us that when the need arises, the plan will be brought into action to assist the owners of damaged property anywhere in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The Member for Nipissing, do you wish to comment?

Mr. Harris: I agree.

Mr. Pierce: In response to the comments by the member for Essex North, I wish to inform the member that I am aware of the act and how it covers shoreline protection on any water. The problem we are faced with is not that the act does not cover it but that the policy of the government does not allow at this time for applications to come forward from any communities other than those bordering the Great Lakes. That is the crux of the problem.

I had a legal interpretation of the act, and at one point, I had considered requesting an amendment to the act, but there is no room for an amendment because the act does cover the fact that all waterways and all shorelines are covered. Unfortunately, this government has neglected to address the problem that there are waters other than those of the Great Lakes and that there are property owners who request the kind of assistance that is being requested and is so badly needed by people, whether they be private enterprises or cottage owners, require the assistance covered under the act.

I can only say again that I hope, when the minister goes back to cabinet, that policy will be extended to include all waterways.

An hon. member: Mr. Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: You will have to take your seat. Are you addressing remarks to this issue? Are you debating this issue? Is it a point of order? You will have to speak from your seat.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Hennessy: Now I am in good order. That will bring a little amusement to the people watching.

I rise to support the minister's efforts in regard to bringing in more financial assistance. I remember last year there was a problem in the Shuniah area of Thunder Bay. The minister at that time came forward with a few good suggestions and brought out the act to help the people who had property on the shoreline and were having problems in regard to the damage that was done by Lake Superior. In northwestern Ontario we get a lot of tough weather, a lot of snow, and a lot of ice forms on Lake Superior. When it melts in the spring, people living in the Shuniah area more or less experience some difficulties.

Bringing out the Shoreline Property Assistance Act helped the people of that area. A person who may not have had the necessary funds to repair his cottage got some assistance. It alleviated the problem of people with year-round homes. It was a godsend to some extent. I would like to see the minister look into improving it. There is always room for improvement.

As my colleague the member for Rainy River has mentioned, there are tourist operators, people who occupy summer homes year-round and people who go there during the summer, and all these lakes erupt. If one lives in northwestern Ontario, one realizes the snow and the large amount of water that is up there. The hot air is in Toronto, but the water is in northwestern Ontario.

I support the bill. It is a bill in the right direction to help people in northwestern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: With all the talking that has been going on today, we might be responsible for raising the level of the Great Lakes waters.

Miss Stephenson: I think the minister has dried it up a bit.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Is that right?

This has been an informative afternoon. Bill 43 will be at its best only if I go back to my ministry, take all the ideas and put them into another form of the bill. It has been great. I want to thank members for their participation. I know this bill is not a cure-all; it is a short-term policy.

I remind members of this House, as they know, that we have an independent consultant looking at the long-term effects of shoreline damages. I hope that by the end of October 1986, this report will be before me and that some of their concerns and considerations will be part of the long-term shoreline protective act.

The member for Sarnia, the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) and the member for Essex North all talked about what we can do to improve the water levels. I know it is not only the responsibility of this government, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Natural Resources or the Ministry of the Environment. It is the responsibility of this provincial government and the federal government to get involved. We have to work at this in a partnership, and the federal government has to try to help this province improve this bill by providing us with more dollars.

The member for Kenora said the number of dollars had not increased since 1981. He is right. However, since 1981 we have been after the federal government to take part in this responsibility. We have not been too successful; in fact, we have not been successful at all.

The amendments before this House will answer some of the immediate concerns of today. As I said before, the shoreline management review committee will be reporting back to me in October. I hope at some time in the near future I will present to this House the long-term guidelines of this government on shorelines.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Bill 79, An Act to amend the Municipal Act, is to strike a balance between the two parts. The municipalities are allowed additional latitude to assist with economic development, but at the same time, there are safeguards to ensure we meet the overwhelming desire of municipalities to outlaw bidding wars.

There are two chief elements of this bill: (1) to clear the way for municipalities to assist with the establishment of small business incubator facilities and (2) to reaffirm, with this small business exception, the government's intention of continuing the prohibition of municipal financial assistance to business and commercial ventures.

This emphasis on small business deserves special attention. In the past decade, this sector has created 75 per cent of all new jobs. Along with this rate of success, there are many failures. It has often been said that for potentially successful entrepreneurs, a major cause of these problems is lack of experience with business practices and operations.

Small business incubators are places where new entrepreneurs will have access to common services, low-cost space, marketing and organizational advice, and will be nurtured for a limited, three-year period. At the end of that time, these enterprises should emerge as profitable ventures. This concept is gaining in popularity in the United States, where some 70 municipalities or ventures are already in place, many with public sector support, as well as in Europe.

The government is doing its part to get these facilities off the ground in Ontario. On December 5, 1985, my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) announced the community small business ventures program, which to date has provided provincial assistance to several local projects. Three municipalities are participating in this program: the region of Waterloo and the cities of London and Brantford. A major part of the municipal involvement is the provision of a building and subsidized rents. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology is providing interim provincial funding for the municipal cost share until this legislation is in place.

After Bill 79 received first reading on December 16, 1985, I sent a letter to all municipal clerks asking for their comments. The reaction to this initiative has been overwhelmingly favourable.

6 p.m.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario suggested some modification to the legislation. To meet the concerns of AMO, I will introduce three amending motions. The first is to make clear that grants, loans and sale of land to business under community improvement provisions of the Planning Act are subject to the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, exempt from the bonusing prohibition. The second motion is to allow councils to establish nonprofit corporations to operate incubator centres and appoint representatives to similar corporations set up by the others. The third is to clarify the kind of assistance municipalities may provide to eligible small businesses.

Mr. Barlow: I am planning to support this and I think our party will, although our critic for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will give the party's position. I want to make a few comments on this bill.

One of the organizations in the regional municipality of Waterloo that is participating in the community small business centres program is an organization known as the Community Small Business Centre of Waterloo Region Inc. The official announcement was made on December 4, following a couple of years of dialogue between the business and the university communities in Waterloo region, discussing the incubator business program. I know they had many conversations with the minister's predecessor and with officials from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, trying to come up with a program that would benefit all the region.

There was an official press release issued on December 4 which somehow or other referred to only three of the four members who represent the regional municipality of Waterloo. It said, "`We are extremely pleased that these facilities are coming to the Waterloo region,' noted Herb Epp, parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer of Ontario; John Sweeney, Minister of Community and Social Services, and MPP David R. Cooke." For some reason, the name of the fourth member who represents Waterloo region was inadvertently left off the list. That happens to be yours truly. I realize it was inadvertent. If I had brought it to somebody's attention, they would have sent out another press release reminding the community that the member for Cambridge was also pleased to be involved in this for the two years it had been going on under the previous government.

A community board was formed under a private citizen who was really spearheading the whole program. I think the program will be beneficial. The number of people who will get involved is something like 2,500 or 3,000. It is suggested they will be able to participate and benefit from this small business program. The idea of the incubator centres was born in the United States. It has been very successful there. There are some private incubator centres around. I know of one in my own community of Cambridge.

The involvement of the province in the cost-sharing arrangement between the region and the province is $800,000 by the province and $100,000 by the region over three years. The region will be putting $100,000 into this program to make sure it is successful and helps those who truly need to be helped as they develop their small businesses.

I had a question for the minister and perhaps he can answer it. He will recall that he received a letter from Cambridge city council on a resolution passed by it in March of this year. I will read the resolution:

"The council of the city of Cambridge requests the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to amend Bill 79 to provide for a definition for the words `levy, charge or fee' as contained in section 112(d) of Bill 79 and further include clarification that the restriction does not apply to policies that are applicable on a city-wide or an area-wide basis."

The concern of the municipality about the words "levy, charge or fee" is that very often concessions are made on an overall city basis. Perhaps they waive a lot levy for a type of building or a type of facility that might be going up. We are afraid that with no definition in the definition section, this may present a problem somewhere down the road. Perhaps when the minister is responding he can refer to that resolution and to whether there has been any action taken or whether he intends to make an amendment on that basis.

I wanted to bring those few comments to the floor of the House. I support this program. It is an excellent program. There are going to be many small businesses started because of this bill. It is another one of the great pieces of legislation thought of and introduced in the days of the previous government, and I am glad to see this government carrying it on.

Mr. Breaugh: We are going to support Bill 79. It is a difficult question, because many other jurisdictions have got themselves into a great deal of difficulty by providing various incentives for businesses to locate there. This bill, I have heard it argued, restricts that somewhat. I have also heard it argued that it expands and clarifies how they might go about it. I am aware that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is, by and large, supportive of the measure.

I think the larger difficulty we will have to address at some time is the activities of various levels of government in providing incentives to do certain things. It was not that long ago in this province when we had municipalities adjacent to one another competing for industrial development and using a variety of incentives to get businesses to locate in those municipalities.

Those of us who were involved in municipal politics at that time came to the very swift conclusion that the end of the process was that everybody lost; no one won. That was borne out by the fact that a number of industries were probably enticed to locate in a given municipality, provided they got a number of concessions -- and those concessions generally tended to be cheap land, cheap services and some financial incentives of sorts -- but in the long run it did not work to anybody's advantage. They tended not to stay. They tended not to become an integral part of that community. They were not fly-by-night operations by any means but they were shopping around for the best deal possible at any given time. One cannot really blame an industry for doing that. If those are the rules of the game, that is how they will play it.

6:10 p.m.

We changed substantially the way municipalities could function in that regard. It is true, and it will still be true under this act and its amendments, that municipalities can -- how shall we say? -- accommodate an industry. I suppose we are never going to get away from that. There will always be a way whereby a municipality can enter into a site-plan agreement to provide certain kinds of services and incentives under certain circumstances. For example, we are well aware that in a number of municipalities the industries want everything in place when they arrive. That is sometimes a little difficult to do. When one has planned an industrial park, it is a little costly to front-end all the services for that park. For the residents of a municipality to pay the total freight, put in roads, sewers and water services and provide all the ancillary services an industry wants is not cheap.

Some municipalities have been able to do that. There is an incentive of sorts for any municipality that provides an industrial park. They have already facilitated official plan amendments, zoning amendments and servicing arrangements. We all know that. That is probably about as far as I would be prepared to go. If we get beyond that, we are entering into the field where people are bidding.

I have made my personal views known. I do not advocate that the province should be involved. I know it is very fashionable these days, particularly in trying to attract larger offshore automobile industries to Ontario, for example. Certain arrangements have been made to provide them with incentives. The incentives are that the Ministry of Colleges and Universities will enter into skills training agreements, the various technical centres will provide some support systems and the province will do an appropriate parcelling of the land.

My term for this is "corporate socialism." I am a socialist, and I admit to that, but I am not a corporate socialist. I am an advocate of those in the free enterprise system, such as those at General Motors, who say: "We believe in free enterprise so much we will put our money where our mouth is. We will invest our money freely and on our own because it is a good business decision."

This bill clarifies the situation somewhat. In that regard it is commendable, and that is why we will support it. I point out to the minister that it hardly resolves all the problems. It organizes them and marshals them into certain areas and it is a response to problems brought to his attention, I am sure, by various municipalities. It has taken a rather circuitous route through the municipal organizations. I believe it is supportable today, and we will support it and the amendments. However, I want him also to keep the longer term in view. There are larger problems out there.

I notice even the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is in his seat this afternoon, and I would like him to pay some attention to that even larger problem of whether the province does very much for its citizens by offering incentives to offshore industries. I am not convinced that it does. I would be happier if it confined itself to offering incentives to Canadian-based industries and offered some support systems to them, and I am biased because I come from an automotive community.

I am more than a little angry that we are subsidizing our competition. I do not know that makes a lot of sense. I suppose we will have to wait 10, 15 or 20 years before we really know whether the deal with Honda or with Toyota was a good deal for the people of Ontario, but I know it is a tough sell to go to people at General Motors and say: "We are happy that you have invested $2 billion in our community. We are so happy that you invested $2 billion, we are going to sink another $1 billion or so into your competition."

They do not seem to understand that, and it seems to me they have a legitimate beef with this government and with the federal government. Therefore, I am asking the government to move carefully when it gets into incentive programs, whatever they are. I know the government can rationalize them, and I suppose they all make wonderful sense all over the place. I am sure the investments by Honda and Toyota in those communities are looked at in a different way than I look at them, but I am confused about why we are subsidizing competition to Canadian industry that is already here and that has a proven track record of investment in Ontario. I would like the government to keep that in mind when it proceeds from there, but as for this bill, I believe it is supportable.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Questions and comments?

Mr. Martel: I want to add a few comments to those of my colleague, as one who comes from a municipality that put a whole series of services in to satisfy a mining company called National Steel.

We went out on a limb a number of years ago and put in additions to two schools, a new subdivision and a whole series of things. The company had no input. It did not want input; it just indicated things were good. We no sooner got these things in place than the company packed up its bongo balls and went home, and the municipality of Capreol now pays the price for a subdivision and the additions to the high school and the two elementary schools. It seems to me, as my friend says, that if we are going to do some things such as putting in an infrastructure, there should be a commitment extracted from those birds to indicate some longevity. In the case of my home town, although the town fathers went ahead and put in a new subdivision, the company decided overnight it was closing its doors and going back to the United States. My community now is paying the tab.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What was the company?

Mr. Martel: National Steel.

My taxes for a four-bedroom house in the boonies of northern Ontario are dearer -- $2,000 in a town of 4,000 people -- than those paid by friends of mine who live in Willowdale and who are paying $1,800 for a four-bedroom home in the metropolis of Toronto. We pick up the tab whenever those companies decide it is time to go home, unless we are going to get some guarantee that they are going to be there long enough to make sure the infrastructure that is put in place is paid for.

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

Mr. Martel: My what? I am speaking to the principle of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: His time has expired anyway.

Mr. Martel: No.

Mr. Speaker: I believe members were asked if there were any comments or questions on --

Mr. Martel: No, Mr. Speaker, I was --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just a moment. No.

Mr. Martel: Then I will speak again.

Mr. Speaker: Sure, that is in order. Do any other members wish to make any comments or ask any questions on the comments of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh)?

Mr. Harris: I am delighted to share some of the concerns the member for Oshawa raised about what we are doing with this bill and I understand the necessity for it. I hope it will lead only to the small-scale type of projects with residents in the community.

I am one of those who shares some of the concerns that the member for Oshawa expressed on other occasions as well about the grants to companies as a method of solving regional disparities or as a method of attracting industry to a country versus a country, or a province versus a province, or an area of the province versus an area of the province. I believe governments of all stripes end up wasting a lot of dollars that do not have to be wasted in competing with one another. I look forward to the day when countries can agree. The member for Oshawa makes the point that perhaps some of the free trade discussions will lead to some co-operation in those areas. I would like to see the provinces co-operating more, and provinces versus states.

It bothers me that now we are at least opening the door a crack to municipality versus municipality. I did not hear all of the member's speech, but I am sure these concerns were in there because I have heard him speak on other occasions, and I share those concerns.

I want to indicate that I look forward with some anticipation to the remarks I know will be forthcoming shortly from the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel).

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members have questions or comments?

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to speak in support of Bill 79 --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked the honourable member if he had any comments or questions with regard to the comments of the member for Oshawa.

Mr. Partington: In that case, I do not. I will save them for my statement.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa has up to two minutes to respond.

6:20 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: The new rules are tough, because they require one to stay awake at all times. I know how difficult that is.

I appreciated the remarks that were made by a couple of members, but let me put this little proviso on the end of it all. In a number of our municipalities we are trying to save existing industries. That is not easy to do. The rules of the game are not very clear.

I am an advocate of the notion that wherever a municipality makes a public investment in the private sector, there has to be some equity out of that process; an agreement must be entered into which guarantees jobs in that community. We should be encouraging that kind of arrangement.

We are all trying to grapple with the idea of whether municipalities have any real control over their own futures or destinies. I am an advocate that they should have some control. We should be encouraging them to enter into equity agreements that offer some measure of job guarantees. We should be encouraging them to do something about environmental problems and social problems. This is a relatively new concept in the western world -- it is certainly new in Ontario -- but I believe it is one we will have to come to grips with.

Many of our municipalities, and I am aware of several at this moment, are engaged in a struggle to find some way to keep viable an industry that already exists in the community. I am not one to put a lot of roadblocks in the way, but there ought to be some clear rules on how that is done, and where there is public investment there ought to be some public equity gain.

That is a little different. We do not have a great deal of history in this country of that type of activity, but we do have some. It is a workable concept; it has worked before in Ontario and Canada, and it can work again. If we are to do this kind of activity, those would be my personal ground rules.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: To be fair to all members of the House, I have to recognize the member for Brock.

Mr. Partington: In keeping with the member for Oshawa, I see we are continuing to play by the rules.

I am pleased to join in support of Bill 79 which, as did the previous section 112 of the Municipal Act, prohibits bonuses in aid of any manufacturing or commercial enterprise. However, it goes further than the previous section 112 in a specific attempt to restrict municipalities from granting assistance through those four clauses, "(a) giving or lending any property of the municipality, including money; (b) guaranteeing borrowing; (c) leasing or selling any property of the municipality at below fair market value; (d) giving a total or partial exemption from any levy, charge or fee."

I am certain that under the previous section 112 it was intended that this type of conduct was to be prohibited, but the current suggested amendment sets that out more specifically.

I notice the first amendment by the minister to section 112 of the act, as set out in section 1, indicates that subsection 1 does not apply to a council that it is exercising any of its powers under subsection 28(6) of the Planning Act. It seems that in section 112, the operative phrases are that "a council shall not assist directly or indirectly any...business" and "shall not grant assistance" as set out in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d).

Subsections 28(6) and (7) of the Planning Act each state, "for the purposes of carrying out the community improvement plan." It seems to me there is a clear difference in that under the Planning Act, the intent of the council would be community betterment or community assistance, whereas under section 112 of the Municipal Act, the restriction is against assisting business.

I am pleased to support the amendment, because it further underlines and clarifies that section 112 is not intended to interfere with community activities under subsections 28(6) and (7), although it seems to me that in the first instance it probably would not anyway.

The continuation of the policy against bonusing, as set out in Bill 79, is in the public interest for several reasons.

First, bonusing or granting assistance to a manufacturing or commercial enterprise could lead to a misuse of public funds. The purpose of revenues is to assist the community to provide roads and necessary services, and it would be a derogation of the authority of governments if they were to speculate or invest in enterprises and risk losing those public funds that should be used for roads, hospitals, schools and the public good.

Second, it is necessary to eliminate bonusing by the municipalities because, if that practice were permitted to continue, certain municipalities would acquire competitive advantages or disadvantages over other municipalities. Eventually, we would wind up in a bidding war between one municipality and another for business or industry. As the minister for Oshawa pointed out, it is bad enough that the practice exists between countries and states.

Miss Stephenson: The minister for Oshawa?

Mr. Partington: Did I say "minister"? I meant "member." I keep saying "minister." I do not why I say that.

Mr. Breaugh: The minister for the republic of Oshawa. I do not have much status here, but back home it is big.

Mr. Partington: Anyway, I acknowledge that the member is a member.

Third, the permission for bonusing among municipalities would lead to financial loss. They would be engaging in speculation and, as is the norm, I am sure there would be some tremendous losses.

Generally, the role of a municipality with respect to economic activity has been to provide municipal and public services and facilities. Its job is to levy and collect taxes and to plan and zone the property of the community for physical development.

In Ontario, a municipality cannot own and operate businesses, it cannot lend or give money to businesses and it cannot invest in businesses. This general limitation on intervention confirms the general consensus that municipalities should not interfere with free enterprise; they should stay out of the private marketplace.

Mr. Breaugh: The member should remember Suncor, Minaki and things such as that.

Mr. Partington: The member mentions those endeavours, and there may be some truth to that, but with respect to municipalities, the results would be horrendous.

I may take a few minutes to trace the history of bonusing.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This might be a suitable time to move adjournment.

On motion by Mr. Partington, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

25 juin 1986