role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 3, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L099 - Thu 3 Nov 1988 / Jeu 3 nov 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

NATIONAL SPACE AGENCY

ZOO LICENSING ACT

NATIONAL SPACE AGENCY

ZOO LICENSING ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HEALTH SERVICES

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

STUDENT FUND-RAISING

NATIONAL SALES TAX

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

HAP EMMS

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

WASTE MANAGEMENT

WINE INDUSTRY

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

HOSPITAL SERVICES

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

REFUGEE CLAIMANTS

ONTARIO ROUND TABLE ON ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

WINE INDUSTRY

CIVIL SERVANTS’ LEGAL FEES

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAVONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED ACT

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CRÉDITS, PROGRAMME DES AFFAIRES FRANCOPHONES / ESTIMATES, FRANCOPHONE AFFAIRS PROGRAM

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

NATIONAL SPACE AGENCY

Mrs. O’Neill moved resolution 44:

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

Mrs. O’Neill: It is an honour to introduce a resolution of such importance this morning. The question of where the federal government is to locate its new national space agency is one that deserves the attention of all members of this Legislature.

What is at stake in this discussion is whether we, as Canadians, will continue to build upon our excellence in the many areas of science and technology in which we presently play a leading role. One of these areas is in the field of space science and technology, an area where Canada has been a leader for the past two and a half decades.

I know that all members in this House were pleased with the announcement made by the federal government in the 1986 speech from the throne that it would be establishing a Canadian space agency. I congratulate the federal government for making that commitment. Our future as a trading nation will be determined, at least in part, by the manner in which we meet the technological challenges posed in this and the next century by other countries. Initiatives like a national space agency will consolidate the type of expertise that will develop and enhance much of Canada’s high-technology industry.

The strategy of building upon our excellence is one that has been followed in this province and by our government. Through its initiatives such as the Premier’s Council and the establishment of centres of excellence, we have built upon our strengths to ensure that Ontario will continue to have a leading competitive edge. The decision to establish a space agency was, of course, only a first step. To proceed further will require a number of subsequent but equally important decisions. A central decision is the location of the new agency.

I call on the members of the Legislature to urge the federal government not to treat the issue of location as a political reward. Instead, the federal government must recognize that our space agency should be logically located in the national capital region of our country, an area that offers the type of existing industry, technological resources, administrative and research facilities and overall infrastructure needed to support a national space agency, and, more than that, is the present home and place of work of many of the aerospace experts in our country.

I speak about these important aspects of the national capital region with a great deal of pride. As a member from that area, I know at first hand the important resources that are available to the further development of a national space program within the national capital area.

The issue of the location of the space agency is not a new question. It has been the focus of much activity by our provincial government since the federal announcement was first made in 1986. An endorsement of this resolution is but another step in assisting the government of Ontario in its continued efforts to lobby the federal government -- indeed, now each of the federal candidates -- for locating the new space agency in the national capital region.

Soon after the announcement of a proposed space agency was made by the federal government in October 1986, the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil), sent his deputy minister to meet with federal representatives on the issue and press the case for the national capital location. This effort was followed in February 1987 by a formal letter from the member for Quinte to the Honourable Frank Oberle, the Minister of State (Science and Technology), stating how critical this issue was for the Ontario government. Later that February, the Premier (Mr.

Peterson) wrote the Prime Minister directly, firmly stating Ontario’s preference for the national capital location.

The government of Ontario continued to make its position clear. In March 1987, the Premier spoke forcefully about the space agency in his annual speech to the Trillium dinner in Ottawa. By locating the space agency in the national capital region, the Premier said the federal government would provide a “shining example of interprovincial co-operation and national leadership at the very same time.”

The member for Quinte echoed these sentiments in his keynote address to the Space Business Conference which was held here in Toronto in June 1987. Since then, this government has been continuing its lobbying efforts. I know that in addition to his letters, the Premier has spoken personally with the Prime Minister on a number of occasions on this matter, continuing to make his case for the national capital choice.

It is important for members to remember that Ontario’s position has also been supported by much of Canada’s aerospace industry. Over the last two years, representatives of this industry and the more broadly based economic and academic communities have corresponded, submitted briefs and met with the Premier and the two ministers of Industry, Trade and Technology -- the member for Quinte and the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter) -- to extend their support for our efforts.

We have encouraged these industries to continue to work with us in our efforts to try to persuade the federal government to locate the agency in the national capital region.

Our present Minister of Industry, Trade, and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) has continued the efforts of the member for Quinte. He has met on numerous occasions with industry representatives and has lobbied privately as well as publicly, through speeches in the press, for a decision favouring the national capital. In addition, I know that Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology officials have continued to meet with their federal counterparts to discuss this matter.

I am sure many members are aware of the open letter recently written by our Premier to the Prime Minister on this subject, outlining the many reasons the national capital is the ideal location for the space agency. Most important, the Premier stated that if the space agency is located in the national capital region, Ontario would be prepared to participate financially with the government of Quebec in creating a world-class institution.

I applaud the efforts of the Premier and the entire government of Ontario. They have been involved in this effort since the very beginning. I know I am joined in my congratulations by all members from the Ottawa-Carleton area.

In addition, the Ottawa-Carleton Liberal caucus has undertaken its own lobbying efforts to have the national space agency located in our region. Individually, members have written to the Prime Minister and to federal cabinet ministers involved in the decision. This fall, we as a caucus wrote the Prime Minister outlining the many advantages of locating the centre in the national capital region and requested a meeting to discuss the matter further. To date, we have merely received a letter of acknowledgement.

Before examining in greater detail the many advantages that the national capital region offers, I would like to spend a few moments this morning discussing the importance of space technology and science and the important role they have played in our country’s development. It is perhaps best to begin 25 years ago, when Canada officially joined that exclusive group of countries contributing to the development of the world space program. Through the designing, building, testing and launching of the artificial satellite Alouette I, Canada began what would become a significant contribution to the development of space science and technology.

Some of us are old enough to remember the pride that was engendered in each by that very first undertaking. Those original scientists, researchers and industries have become the core of what has developed into an important segment of Canada’s high-tech industry. Since then, Canadians have contributed greatly to the field of space science and research through their work in government, private laboratories and universities, with the core of the work, I add, being done in laboratories and space program offices situated in the national capital region.

As manager of the government’s space programs, the agency would co-ordinate and centralize the space-related activities of various federal departments and agencies, including the departments of Communications, External Affairs and National Defence, the National Research Council and Telesat Canada, all of which are presently located in the national capital region.

Space technology and science is imperatively global. Hence, the space agency will be working closely with other nations, exchanging information and co-operating in space initiatives and introducing and participating in very necessary international negotiations that surround the global space program. This co-operation would be greatly enhanced and facilitated within the national capital, which, as we all know, is home to the world’s embassies and their diplomatic representatives in Canada.

I would also like to reiterate that almost all of the government personnel with expertise and experience in the area of space science and technology live in the national capital region. It has been estimated that 80 per cent of the necessary and very specialized human resources needed for the space agency are already located there.

The region also boasts many of the related government-sponsored, high-tech space laboratories and test facilities needed to support the activities of the agency. These include the David Florida Laboratory housed at the Communications Research Centre, which presently serves as the existing national space test facility, and the Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing.

The national capital region offers much more than its important proximity to government. It possesses an outstanding industrial and academic infrastructure. These factors have combined to make the national capital region an already established centre of high technology, recognized throughout North America and, indeed, the world.

The national capital region currently has 15 companies employing 2,000 people in various aspects of space technology and its applications. These include a number of leading Canadian companies that the government of Ontario has been able to assist through technology fund grants, such as Canadian Astronautics Ltd., a world leader in satellite-based radar design.

Academically, the region boasts three leading post-secondary institutions -- two universities, the University of Ottawa and Carleton University, and Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology -- all of which are involved in hightech research and study. Each brings a high level of expertise in a number of fields important to space science and technology.

The University of Ottawa is an international leader in satellite and digital communication research. Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology offers a variety of specialized programs in the area of high technology, training the technologists and technicians who assist in the development of research. The college is involved in the areas of microelectronics, manufacturing technologies, digital technologies, linear circuitry and design.

Carleton University boasts a first-class engineering faculty which includes an aeronautical engineering department. I was very pleased to learn that this year, 1988-89, Carleton is offering the first undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering in Canada. I know how pleased the Premier was recently to tour the engineering facility at Carleton, during which time he met with local representatives of the aerospace industry to discuss the space agency issue.

I would also like to add that I recently received a letter and a visit from the Carleton University Students’ Association supporting the efforts of our government in lobbying the federal government to establish the space agency in the national capital region and offering its assistance.

Much of the work of these institutions has been brought together with that of government and industry through the Ottawa-Carleton Research Institute. Since its formation in 1983, this institute has become one of the largest nonprofit research co-operatives of its kind in Canada. The institute serves to pool the expertise that exists within the national capital region at the academic, industrial and government levels to undertake major research projects. The projects the institute has undertaken include work in the fields of microelectronics, communications and computer technology.

The Ottawa-Carleton Research Institute is an important aspect of the existing infrastructure in the area and would obviously be greatly utilized by the new space agency.

May I remind the honourable members of the Ontario Legislature that I am reviewing the outstanding features of an area of this country which was chosen more than a century ago as our nation’s capital, Canada’s capital. Nations’ capitals have always traditionally been home to the world’s space agencies. A nation’s capital is best able to serve the national interest. The neutrality it brings to nations and its important role in steering the course of the nation have resulted in almost every industrialized nation in the world with space capacities locating its space agency in its capital.

As members are aware, one of the roles of the new space agency will be awarding government contracts in the space technology and science fields to companies located in a number of regions in this country, Placing the agency in an area that is home to most national agencies which award contracts seems more than appropriate. Canada’s national capital region equally serves all regions of this country and is centrally located between the two provinces most involved in space science and technology, Ontario and Quebec.

The Premier has stated that our government has no objection to the space agency being established in the portion of the national capital region located in Quebec. Ontario in no way wants the discussion over the location of the space agency to turn into a regional or divisive battle.

It is also important to note that even if the decision is made not to locate the space agency in the national capital, the valuable human and research resources that exist in the federal capital would indeed need to be consulted and, in time, deeply involved in offering their experience and expertise, for they are the Canadian experts.

Of equal importance, many key institutions would be required either to relocate a portion of their operations elsewhere or to move entirely. Such a situation would create obvious inefficiencies and prohibitive costs. For example, it is estimated by the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp. that the cost of construction and relocation involved with establishing the agency elsewhere would cost $100 million. Manpower relocation and recruitment costs have been estimated at $5 million.

Another point which must be taken into consideration is that a substantial amount of staff would decide not to relocate, choosing not to disrupt their lives, and thus depriving the new space agency of their talents, knowledge and expertise.

Presently, within the area of the national capital, new enterprises are being created with local investment and resources. In other words, the dream of a Silicon Valley North has become a reality, however new and fragile. If key industries and government agencies were removed to support a new space agency outside of the national capital region, significant damage would be done to an economic base that has taken years to develop.

There is no overall gain and certainly no national advantage, and there is no advantage to the Canadian people as a whole, to be made from transferring well-established, successful industries and expertise from one region of the country to another. National achievement is much more easily and efficiently made, in my opinion, through building upon existing foundations.

Through many efforts, including today’s resolution, Ontario is attempting once again to encourage the Prime Minister of Canada and members of the federal government to establish this Canadian space agency in the location that offers the longest tradition, the most experience, the concentration of human resources, the laboratories of research -- in other words, the most logical, unbiased and efficient location, the national capital region.

I hope that all members of this House will join me in supporting this important resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Thank you. I am sure honourable members would like me to remind them of standing order 24(b): “When a member is speaking, no other member shall interrupt him, except on a question of order.”

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to be able to address this issue as the Industry, Trade and Technology critic for the New Democratic Party. Certainly research and development is the key to Canada’s future. We have been a nation that has been remiss in our level of spending and our level of investment in our future when it comes to research and development. In terms of western world countries, we have one of the lowest percentages of gross national product investment into research and development as a nation, as federal and provincial governments and in terms of our major private corporations.

The objective of a national space agency is a very valid one. It is an area that holds tremendous promise for the future in terms of new developments and spinoffs into all areas that affect our society and the economic development of our country for years to come. It is a vitally important one to Canada, as it is to other nations of the world, one that we must have a significant share in.

When it comes to a decision such as this on the location of the national space agency, it is so unfortunate that it becomes tied up in an election campaign as a political issue of regional conflict between various areas of the country. I think it is quite unfortunate when political parties use an agency such as this as a tool for pure political gain in one region of a country versus another, and that certainly applies to the position that both the Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, and the leader of the Liberal Party, John Turner, have taken in terms of their commitment to locate this facility in the Montreal area.

At this time I do not want to take a specific view with regard to this amendment that it should definitely be in the Ottawa-Carleton area. In my view, what is needed are valid, objective criteria for these kinds of decisions, criteria that are laid out in advance and in which a clear, fair evaluation is done of all the potential areas within our country for the location of such an agency. This should be done outside of political campaigns, and I think it is unfortunate that we have here a resolution from the provincial Liberal members that again is trying to make it part of the current federal campaign.

This is exactly the same as what happened on the CF-18 fighter contracts. On that kind of proposal there were criteria laid out, and the various potential competitors for that major contract in the maintenance of the CF-18 were evaluated. In that case, Winnipeg -- Bristol Aerospace -- was the winner on valid, objective criteria, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, used his political sway and the sway of his own Conservative members to change that decision and to put that maintenance contract into the city of Montreal. I think it is so unfortunate when that type of action happens.

I believe there are many positive things about the Ottawa-Carleton area, certainly in terms of its research capability, in terms of the types of agencies that are there today and in terms of the current level of private research and development in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I myself had the opportunity to be able to work in the Ottawa-Carleton area for a year and a half, earlier in my working days, for the largest research and development corporation in Canada, Bell-Northern Research Ltd. I know the kinds of talents and the kinds of abilities that are in that area. I think Ottawa-Carleton would do very well in a fair and open competition.

I do not think we should just arbitrarily say that it should be the winner because we are here as representatives of the people of Ontario. I think we should be saying that we should have valid criteria, fair and equitable criteria laid out and that that decision should be made outside of the political realm and outside of an election campaign, when it is used as a pork-barrel tool by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, John Turner, as a way of buying votes in a city such as Montreal, which has about 30 races going on there, in comparison with Ottawa or in comparison with other communities in Ontario or elsewhere in Canada that, as well, may have valid arguments.

I would suggest that, as a provincial government, we should be looking at what we can do to improve the level of research and development in our province. This is an area in which I think this Liberal government has left us far behind. This government has not taken the initiative needed to make a significant improvement in the percentage of research and development spending in Ontario. It particularly has not done so in terms of the criteria it has laid out for research and development dispersion. It continues to put almost all funds into the areas that already have strong universities and strong research components.

One of the components of any evaluation of major government spending, particularly technological development, has to be what regions and what areas need the development and what industries require competitiveness to be at world scale and in the forefront of new developments in their particular industries. It is not just the areas of high technology. It is not just the areas of communications and computers that we have to invest in.

We have very important fundamental industries in terms of our resource industries and in terms of basic manufacturing in Ontario which are keys to our economic success, which are major portions of our export product. We have to ensure that they maintain their competitiveness and are in the forefront of those areas.

This government has been extremely remiss in investing in those areas. The amount it has invested, primarily in the high-technology area, is small. Because the funds have been so small, they are unable to make a significant impact in those areas. The amount of investment that goes into high technology has to be enormous in comparison with what a more modest amount could do in basic industry. This province has not taken those steps and has not invested in areas of the province and in industries in this province that have been vital to our past and are vital currently in terms of our trade surpluses and will continue to be vital in the future.

Certainly, as the resolution has suggested and as the member for Ottawa-Rideau (Mrs. O’Neill) has said, there are very valid arguments for the Ottawa-Carleton area to be chosen for this national space agency. The National Research Council is located in Ottawa. That is an important research institute of the federal government. That could be played on in terms of synergies with a national space agency.

Again, I would suggest that we should be more objective and more fair, take this out of the political realm and insist that this type of pork-barrel campaign does not become a part of this election campaign. It should not have been a part of it, and I think it is unfortunate that the member for Ottawa-Rideau is using this as a political tool to promote her own particular regional interest in the middle of a federal election campaign.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members of the government party will heed your warning about the rule, whatever number it was, and not interrupt me.

This resolution is the height of hypocrisy. When a member of the provincial Liberal government brings forward a resolution in favour of the national space agency in Ottawa-Carleton two years after it was originally proposed by our federal government, we know how desperate they are to control the damage that has been caused to them by their lack of action in the past.

The Liberal and New Democratic candidates running in the federal election in Ottawa-Carleton are cringing today because both of their leaders have said during this election campaign that the space agency should be located in Montreal. I will quote Mr. Turner later.

In the early parts of this particular campaign, the Liberal candidates in Ottawa-Carleton were saying to the Conservative candidates in the federal election, “Why have you not got it here in Ottawa-Carleton?” Since Mr. Turner affirmed in the debate --

An hon. member: In the French one.

I want to go over the history of this, because the inaction of this government is shameful.

In October 1986, the federal throne speech announced that a federal space agency would be established. Immediately the province of Quebec sent delegations down to Ottawa to lobby the federal government for the location of the space agency in Quebec and, more particularly, in Montreal.

On January 12, 1987, a committee from the Ottawa business community high technology centre which included Dave Daubney, the member of Parliament for Ottawa West, Bill Tupper, the MP for Nepean-Carleton, and Barry Turner, the MP for Ottawa-Carleton, got together with the high technology community and tried to influence the government. They have successfully kept the government at bay from making a decision to go to Quebec, notwithstanding all of the lobbying that Quebec is doing, and very precious little is being done here.

Interestingly enough, one of the members of that group happens to be Gordon Gow, now the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. One of the reasons the member for Ottawa-Rideau has brought this message to us is the fact that Gordon Gow -- not an elected representative, somebody who was appointed in the last few months -- has finally awakened this government to the fact that it had better get off its duff and start moving. A bureaucrat is moving this government towards making a statement on this, not in fact the politicians who represent the area.

On January 15, 1987, I stood in this Legislature and asked the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) what, in fact, the Liberal government of Ontario had done to lobby the federal government to locate the space agency in Ottawa-Carleton, The answer, three months after the announcement was made, was that they had done nothing, absolutely nothing. Only after my urging did they start to react, and even that reaction was minor. Perhaps it is a reflection of the fact that they do not consider Ottawa-Carleton, even after a question is asked in this Legislature, an important area.

Later in 1987, I wrote to the Premier and asked him in fact what he had done and what his ministers had done to locate the space agency in Ottawa-Carleton.

His answer to me was on November 27, 1987, one full year after the space agency was announced. I was told by the Premier of this province that neither he, his minister nor his deputy minister had requested one meeting with Mr. Oberle, Minister of State (Science and Technology), or the Prime Minister of this country. Sure, they had written a couple of letters, standard letters that their staff had churned out, to the minister and to the Prime Minister.

Mrs. O’Neill: I’d like to see that letter.

Miss Nicholas: Send that letter over.

Mr. Sterling: They did not take one step until one year after that.

Miss Nicholas: Let’s have a look at all that.

Mr. Sterling: I will produce and table this letter in the Legislature. This morning was the first time I ever heard of any meeting between an official of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and any member of the federal government. I am irate at the actions of this government in terms of what it has not done on behalf of the Ottawa-Carleton area. I think it is absolutely amazing that a Liberal member in the Ottawa-Carleton area has the nerve to bring this resolution here two years after they should have started acting.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: We have eight Liberal MPPs in the area and one Conservative. I happen to be the Conservative member in that area. I have done five times as much as the eight of them combined and I did it when it counted. I got this government at least off its duff to write a letter. That is what they think is action,

Miss Nicholas: Are you pointing at us?

Mr. Villeneuve: Are you the government or are you not?

Mr. Black: On a point of order, Mr. Sneaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay on a point of order.

Mr. Sterling: I hope this is not taking away from my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Black: Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention and to the attention of this House that yesterday I was reprimanded by the Speaker for speaking out when I was not sitting in my normal seat. This morning we have the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) who continues to interject, something that he should not be doing; but to make it even worse, he is doing it from a seat other than his own. I would ask that he be asked to sit quietly so that we can hear the speaker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: They do not want to hear. They think this is a joking matter, the Liberal members. I do not think it is a joking matter, because the location of the space agency in the Ottawa-Carleton area will mean thousands of jobs to that area, The Liberal leader of the federal party, if he should ever be elected Prime Minister, is going to take thousands of jobs out of Ottawa-Carleton and transfer them to the city of Montreal.

John Turner, the Liberal leader, disagrees with so much of what the member for Ottawa-Rideau has said today. I will quote from La Presse, September 23, 1987: “Liberal leader John Turner favours Montreal as the site of the future Canadian space agency.... According to Mr. Turner, Montreal is the logical site” -- I say to the member for Ottawa-Rideau -- ”for the agency, an institution which Ottawa wishes to found in order to co-ordinate its programs in the high-technology sector.

“‘Considering that the aeronautics industry is now centred in Toronto,’” -- not in Ottawa -- ’“I believe that the space agency should be concentrated here in Montreal,’ the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday....”

I am also informed that Ed Broadbent has said during this election campaign that it should be located in the city of Montreal. I want to say to the people of Ottawa-Carleton, if you want an opportunity to have the space agency located in Ottawa-Carleton, you cannot vote for John Turner and you cannot vote for Ed Broadbent. Vote for candidates in Ottawa-Carleton. Vote for Bill Tupper in Nepean who supports and will convince his government that the space agency should go in Ottawa-Carleton. Vote for Barry Turner, Dave Daubney, Bob Plamondon, Paul Dick, Barry Moore, Claudy Mailly and Nicole Moreault.

I am going to hold my nose and vote for this resolution because I cannot vote against it.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to make the point that I am a little concerned that in private members’ hours we have these irresponsible points of order raised, especially in the 10-minute time frame. It takes away from the private member’s time. We are each allocated 10 minutes and when the speaker who has just spoken has so many important things to say, how --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

The Acting Speaker: I have not yet heard the point of order of the member for Wellington.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The point is quite simple: Do not allow irresponsible points of order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Can we continue with the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty)?

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I had a point of order.

An hon. member: There was no point of order.

Mr. Sterling: I was denied approximately a minute with regard to what I wanted to say because the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) --

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: Maybe he does not think it is important that there is a space agency in Ottawa-Carleton, but we think it is important. I would like to ask for an extra minute or so to wind up my remarks.

The Acting Speaker: I take that as a request for an additional minute. Is there unanimous consent to grant the member for Carleton-

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker: May we now --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa South, please.

Mr. McGuinty: I am surprised by the statement made by the honourable member for Carleton. Actually, the motion before us has to do with the location of the space agency, not with the scenario going back two or three years regarding the kind and degree of pressure that was exerted by this government. In fact, it seems strange to me that he would chastise my colleague the honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau for not having taken action two years ago in this House, when as far as I know she was not even in the House.

Members will recall a few years ago when the Americans were somewhat upset by the launching of Sputnik into space, Wernher von Braun was one of the great German scientists working at Cape Canaveral. Bob Hope’s comment on that was simply: “Well, let’s not get too upset. That simply means that the Russians’ German scientists are better than our German scientists.” I think that time has long gone by. In Canada, we have the Canadian talent to work effectively in this area.

This government has shown an interest in this program since 1996, and I have references to statements and pressures by the member for Quinte going back to that point. As the honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau has stated, more recently, in September of this year, the Premier lamented the perception that the discussion of the space agency location appeared to have evolved into a political debate between Quebec and Ontario.

Mr. Sterling: You made it political in this Legislature?

Mr. McGuinty: The member for Carleton chastised his fellows across the floor when he began to speak for having -- he reminds me of one time when John Barrymore was acting in a Broadway play, Henry V actually. One line in the play goes: “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse.” Somebody, similar to my colleague from Carleton, brayed from the first row. John Barrymore did not lose a line. He simply said, “Enough, good man. Yon braying ass will do.”

The Premier has stated that the real issue is how to ensure the space industry is competitive with the rest of the world. To this end, the location of the space agency would be most appropriate in the National Capital Region, be that location Ottawa or Hull, Ontario or Quebec In that place, it would be a model for intergovernmental co-operation between Quebec and Ontario, the other provinces and the federal government, with individual strengths pooled to create a unique world-class institution.

As my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau has indicated, the practical reasons for the location of the space agency in the national capital region are compelling and convincing. They include, among other things, easy access to the government departments that have vested interests in this area: the Department of National Defence, the Department of Transport, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Communications and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

There would be easy political co-ordination with the federal government. All but one of the countries in space research and development have their space agencies in their nation’s capital to enhance the national context of aerospace research and development. Major federal government labs are already located in Ottawa -- the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, for example. There are space companies in the Ottawa region such as Canadian Aeronautics and Space, and Telesat. To facilitate the coordinating of space activities with foreign governments, the embassies are conveniently located in Ottawa.

The formulation and development of a national space policy would be more acceptable, and therefore credible, if it is carried out in the national capital region, be it Ottawa or Hull. The international perception resulting from a decision to locate the space agency in Montreal would not be positive, as it would convey the message that Canada is more interested in regional factors than it is in the formulation of a national strategy for the use of space.

The National Aeronautical Establishment of the National Research Council has five labs and employs approximately 200 people, 50 of whom are professional engineers. The NRC also has a space division. There are other Ottawa-based companies that work in the field of aerospace propulsion. The Communications Research Centre is an important aerospace facility in Ottawa that does environmental testing of satellites primarily. Canadian Astronautics Ltd. is a large Ottawa-based company that is very much involved in aerospace research and development, especially in the fields of antennas, communications, radar and remote sensing. It has up to 400 employees with 60 professional engineers.

In addition, there are two major universities in Ottawa-Carleton -- Carleton University and the University of Ottawa -- both of which are eminently qualified to participate in and contribute to the work of the space agency. As my colleague has referred to, Carleton University has offered masters’ and doctoral programs for 25 years and has recently initiated a program in aerospace engineering. The University of Ottawa is willing and able to make a constructive contribution to this great program.

For these reasons, as a national undertaking with a national significance in the international world, the situation of that space agency would be most appropriate in the national capital region. I ask for the members’ support of this resolution.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate. I regret very much that private members’ hour is being used essentially for fighting the federal election in Ottawa-Carleton in the Ontario Legislature. To have the member who introduced the resolution get up and make a pitch, basically to try to influence the votes of the people in Ottawa-Carleton, and then to have the member for Carleton end his remarks by listing all the Tory candidates in the region and saying that people should vote for them --

Mr. Runciman: Good people.

Mr. Wildman: I am not suggesting they are not good people. For that matter, most of the people who live in Ottawa-Carleton are good people. But I am suggesting that this is not the place to be saying, “Vote for Such-and-such.”

This is not the federal election campaign. I think it demeans private members’ hour. It makes it a mockery. It just persuades everyone that what is going on in this place on Thursday mornings is really a waste of time and just a big joke.

The matter put before us, the national space agency, is an important question. Frankly, as a member who is interested in research and development, who is concerned about the general lack of research and development in this country as compared to other industrialized nations, and who is concerned about the future of our industrial development because of the inadequacy of research and development in Ontario and in Canada, I think this is an important matter.

I am concerned that the federal Conservative government, in its first few months of office, took it upon itself to substantially cut the funding for agencies such as the National Research Council of Canada, to denigrate the research efforts that were made by the federal government in the past, and to actually put in jeopardy the jobs of many important scientists who obviously were concerned about the future, and as a result, decided to leave.

Interjections.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I believe one of the members who is interjecting was objecting to other members interjecting earlier.

As I was saying, many scientists whose futures were not secure chose to choose positions outside of this country because of the cutbacks that were made by the Conservative government when it came to power.

This was not just true of the National Research Council. We saw similar attacks on the scientific community by the Conservative government even in the Department of the Environment, the Canadian Wildlife Service and so on. It was not just in research and development; it was in important research related to the protection of the environment in this country. So I do not think there has really been any concerted effort by the Conservatives at the federal level to encourage the scientific community.

As a matter of fact, the establishment of the space agency in itself was part of that attack on the National Research Council, because as we all know, Canada’s efforts in space have been largely related to its significant contributions in the field of communications and satellite communications. Those efforts have been centred largely, though not completely, in the NRC. By the establishment of a space agency, the federal Conservatives were attempting to hive off a very important part of the work of the NRC to some other agency and to use it, for whatever reasons, to try to curry favour with another region of the country.

I think it is unfortunate, though, that we have before us right now a resolution which basically says we should not be concerned about the objective criteria for determining where such an agency should be established, but that rather we should say, “It should go to this particular area as opposed to another one, whether or not that one area is better than the other.”

We have seen the problems we have experienced in this country as a result of decisions such as the CF-18 contract, where in fact there was an independent criterion considered for determining where that contract should go. After that assessment was done, the decision was it should go to Winnipeg, Manitoba. Instead, for political reasons, the federal government decided to locate it in Montreal, Quebec.

There is no question that in that case there was technical expertise in aeronautics in Quebec and in Montreal, but the fact was that an independent agency reviewed the proposals and decided that a particular contract should go to a company in Manitoba. That was overruled for political reasons. This resolution before us basically attempts to do the same thing,

As my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) indicated, if this issue were left to an independent analysis of objective criteria, we think the Ottawa-Carleton region would do very well. I have mentioned the contributions of the National Research Council, the concentration of scientific expertise particularly in the communications and satellite fields, in that area. My colleague mentioned Bell-Northern Research. We have seen the advances, although there have been some difficulties subsequently, in the Ottawa-Carleton area in the field of computer technology.

Frankly, we think that if we were to leave these issues, as has been suggested by my federal leader, to objective criteria analysis rather than political pork barrels, in this case Ottawa-Carleton would do very well. For that reason, I have some serious problems with the wording of this resolution.

It would be very difficult for any member of the House to vote against this resolution. I am gratified that the member has at least admitted that when she is talking about the national capital region, she is including Hull, Quebec. It is difficult to say no, to vote against this, because it would be like saying these agencies should not be in Ottawa.

What we are saying is that if Ottawa were allowed to compete with Montreal or whatever other centre in this country on an equal footing, we think Ottawa would do very well. That is unfortunately not what is said in this resolution. The resolution does not say all communities should be considered objectively and it should be decided on the expertise available, on the companies, the agencies, the economic aspects that are available in the communities, and decided on that alone rather than on political preferences.

Mrs. O’Neill: No; you weren’t listening.

Mr. Wildman: I did not hear, in any part of this debate, a suggestion that the presenter of the resolution would acquiesce in the establishment of a space agency in Montreal, Quebec, if an objective analysis decided Montreal was better than the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Mr. Black: You weren’t listening.

Mr. Wildman: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay says I was not listening. After reading his report, I am wondering if he has been on something this morning.

Mr. McGuigan: You are imputing morals.

Mr. Wildman: I certainly would not impute good morals.

I hope the member will accept the view that these things should be decided on their merits rather than on the old Liberal-Tory approach of a political pork barrel. We have had enough of that in this country.

Mr. Jackson: Isn’t that what Ed Broadbent said?

Mr. Wildman: Ed Broadbent has said in this campaign that these decisions should be made objectively, and that is true of appointments as well.

I will vote in favour of this resolution, not because I think it is a good one, but because to vote against it would be to say that we are against Ottawa-Carleton. Having grown up in that region, I can hardly vote that way.

Mrs. O’Neill: The member for Sault Ste. Marie and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) were intimating that politicians are not elected to make decisions. Anyone who thinks that this decision is not going to be made politically has his head in the sand.

I am not trying to influence anybody’s vote in particular or speak on behalf of any party other than the constituents I represent. What I am doing this morning is appealing to every single federal candidate in this country to consider objectively the criteria that exist in the area that I represent.

I examined the criteria. I think I did it objectively. I gave at least 10 points for why our area was the area that had the infrastructure, that had the communication systems, that had the science laboratories, that had the human resources. All of these things have been substantiated and supported nationally and internationally by members of the aerospace industry itself and by scientists who have come to the area to study, and those things have been well documented and researched in many journals.

Our Premier has been very statesmanlike in his activity throughout this whole endeavour. He has been statesmanlike because he has suggested that we can work interprovincially on this matter. He has stated that very publicly. In fact, he has stated that we would participate financially interprovincially.

Then we have also the possibility of a much better federal-provincial triumvirate being created there in the national capital area. That is the way we want to go: Quebec, Ontario and the federal government.

This issue cannot be divisive; it should not be divisive; it should not be partisan. I totally agree with those statements. It should not be a decision based upon regional need.

We have the traditions. We have built the foundations -- academic, scientific and economic. We have the experience in the area I represent. The people who have been involved in this industry for the last quarter of a century live within Ottawa-Hull. The research facilities have been developed. The economic background is there. The communication and technical structures are in existence.

I strongly request that the members Of this Legislature consider my request this morning for support for a national space agency to be located in the national capital region of our country.

ZOO LICENSING ACT

Mr. Philip moved second reading of Bill 129,

An Act to regulate the Care of Animals kept for Exhibition or Entertainment.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and other members for your attention in the consideration of the case that I shall be presenting as I urge members to support Bill 129,

An Act to regulate the Care of Animals kept for Exhibition or Entertainment.

This bill is supported by zoologists, by animal behaviourists, by environmentalists, by humane societies across the province and, indeed, by the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

It is supported by veterinarians across the province, and members will have received a letter of endorsement written by Dr. Donald McKeown, president of the Society of Ontario Veterinarians. It is also supported by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens in this province who have visited certain private zoos and other animal exhibits and who were appalled by the conditions the animals must live in and by the lack of safety precautions for visitors.

I was called out of the House just a couple of minutes ago to receive a call from Calvin White, the general director of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo. He expressed the support of the zoologists and the people at the Metro Zoo for this bill and said that I should tell the government that he and his colleagues are willing to work with the government to implement, to devise, and to revise if necessary, any of the regulations under this bill. He said that the bill has his full and complete support.

I want to thank all of these people for their support. I want to thank those who took time to review and offer constructive advice and changes in the original draft bill which I sent to them. I think that those who have done so will find their concerns are reflected in this revised bill which we are debating today.

It is impossible to name the many citizens and the professional organizations that have spent hours working with me in drafting the bill. However, a few should be singled out. Barry Kent MacKay, a columnist for the Toronto Star and a naturalist, is a person who has always been a source of advice and support to me on this bill and on other concerns that I have brought to the floor of this House. Liz White and Holly Penfound have been of tremendous help in getting our arguments distributed and listened to by people across the province.

Our own legislative library research staff and the legislative draftspeople have, as always, performed in a professional way. Dr. Ron Orenstein, who is in the gallery, is an internationally recognized zoologist and also a lawyer who has specialized in laws related to animal care. He has provided a tremendous amount of advice, both in terms of the content and in understanding the laws of other jurisdictions that might be of help to those of us in Ontario.

Most important, I want to thank Rob Laidlaw, the founder of Zoocheck Canada and the author of Captive Animals in Ontario. He best exemplifies what I think it is to be a solid citizen in a democratic country. Rob is an ordinary citizen who saw a serious problem that needed correction. He spent a considerable amount of his own money travelling to the various zoos and other animal exhibits across the province.

He is not a radical by any sense of the imagination. He is an ordinary citizen who felt that he must speak up and point out a problem. When the bill or its facsimile becomes law, either today or tomorrow or at some point in time, as it by necessity will have to become law, it should be Rob Laidlaw who takes the bows and takes the credit and not myself.

This bill requires that a person, to acquire a licence to operate a garden, park or other establishment that keeps animals for the purpose of exhibition or entertainment, must first of all obtain a licence. The bill does not apply to circuses or pet shops. Applicants for a licence are required to submit a detailed plan documenting how they propose to care for the animals and ensuring that they have adequate financing to properly care for the animals.

The bill sets out standards for providing and caring for animals. The bill provides for the inspection of the premises of such establishments. A person who contravenes this would be subject to a fine or, indeed, the animals could be taken by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

There are, thus, two thrusts or objectives of this bill: One is safety for the public and the other is the humane treatment of the animals. They are perhaps best summarized by the endorsement of the Society of Ontario Veterinarians whose resolution reads as follows:

“The Society of Ontario Veterinarians is concerned about the inhumane conditions of captive animals in some privately owned zoos in Ontario, as well as the lack of safety precautions for visitors, evident in these zoos.

“It is for these reasons the Society of Ontario Veterinarians is actively involved in the formulation of some legislation in Ontario to make the licensing of these zoos mandatory and thereby instituting clearly definable standards and regulations for zoo animal care and inspection.”

The idea of the government requiring certain operators of various types of businesses to obtain a licence is not a new and radical idea. At present, there are roughly 50 acts in Ontario requiring some kind of licensing. Examples of these are the Animals for Research Act, the Game and Fish Act, the Dead Animal Disposal Act and the Amusement Devices Act which provides some standards and some protection for public visiting fairs, exhibitions and so forth.

The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act gives some power to the Ontario humane societies to intervene where domestic animals are very obviously physically abused but it does not satisfy the objectives of this bill, which combines both public safety and animal protection.

There are those who will advocate the abolition of all zoos. That is not the objective of this bill. There are those who believe that zoos, be they private or public or publicly owned, serve useful purposes. These people feel comfortable with this bill. They argue that well-run zoos can serve the purposes of education, preservation of endangered species and research of a nonintrusive kind into the wonders of animal behaviour. Without standards, most of the private zoos in this province do not yet serve these purposes. There are some that do meet these standards, I might add.

In this province, any person can open and operate a zoo without any proof that he or she knows anything about the animals he or she is exhibiting, without any regulation regarding food or housing of these animals, without any plan for adequate safety for the public visiting these places whatsoever and without any proof of financial capability to keep on caring for the animals. Without being overly dramatic, that is as insane as giving your seven-year-old son a rifle and telling him to go in the backyard and learn how to use it. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I only wish that each and every one of you here had read the report by Rob Laidlaw which documents the dangers and horrors found in some of the private zoos in Ontario. If you did, I know that this bill would receive unanimous support. Allow me, though, to list just some of the problems which I observed when I visited one of the private zoos with Dr. Dianne Balfour, an animal behaviourist, and Barry Kent MacKay, an author and wildlife expert. In this particular zoo on one morning, we observed just a few of these items.

Some cages may not be able to contain their captives if the animals were to become excessively agitated, frightened or aggressive. Stand-off barriers intended to keep the public a safe distance from the cages are not designed to discourage children from crossing over them or crawling under them. Many of the stand-off barriers are so close an individual can lean over and put his hand into the cage. Feeding doors for many cages are unlocked and easily accessible from the public walkway.

Much of the wire fencing is affixed to the exterior of the wooden cage support posts, exposing the wood directly to the animals. Dense brush surrounding many of the cages would make it difficult to locate an escaped animal. A public walkway comes to an end by a wolf enclosure, a situation that could be potentially a trap for a visitor if the animal escaped. Exits are not clearly sign-posted. There is no map of the zoo grounds available to the visitor. During two inspections, no staff members were seen tending to the animals or supervising the visitors beyond the admission gates.

Stand-off barriers do little to protect the animals from the public. Many animals are in confined conditions and have no escape from public view. Potentially hazardous protrusions and loose pieces of wire are evident on many of the barriers.

Most animals have little, if any, cage furniture and few playthings to stimulate and occupy them. Many of the animals exhibit repetitive movements such as pacing back and forth in their cages, which would be a sign of stress and boredom. That is not just my observation. It is the observation of Dr. Balfour, a trained animal behaviourist, and of Barry Kent MacKay, a wildlife expert and author. That is just one of the zoos that we visited in preparing this bill.

I understand that the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) has stated that she and her officials are currently studying the matter and that they endorse the basic principle of the bill. A year ago I was told the same thing by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). However, he has been silent and has failed to meet with the various professional groups that asked to meet with him to discuss this bill.

I applaud the Solicitor General, if she is studying this problem, and I hope that this bill and the work of Zoocheck and the various humane societies and zoologists who have been writing to government members have played some role in stimulating her interest in this.

I gather that she has stated, or her officials have stated, that they would like a wider sweeping bill, one that would cover pet shops, circuses and a few other things. That is fine, but at the moment we have an immediate problem. I took forward to seeing any broader legislation which the government, be it the Solicitor General or the Minister of Natural Resources, might introduce.

I remind this government that in 1977, I introduced a bill and the then Conservative Minister of Natural Resources stated that he agreed with it, but he was bringing in a broader bill. At that time, I presented to him and his officials the argument that it would make more sense for my bill to be allowed to go to third reading and proclaimed and then he could introduce his legislation at some time in the future and incorporate my bill or, indeed, if he wished, abolish my bill. I think he had the maturity and the professional character that he could accept that a member of the opposition could have a good idea, worth implementing by the government, and he did so.

I credit the Solicitor General and the Minister of Natural Resources with the same integrity as that Conservative Minister of Natural Resources in 1977. I say to the members of the government, this bill stands on its own. It is very similar to legislation that is now working successfully in Great Britain. Indeed, members of Parliament from Great Britain have told me that on examining my bill, with the experience of the British bill, if they had their opportunity they would introduce my bill rather than the British legislation. None the less, it is quite similar.

My bill, according to the British parliamentarians, is a little bit more practical in terms of the way in which enforcement is carried out. I say to members, pass this bill today. Let it be called for third reading. Do so before another child or a visitor to a zoo is injured. If the government wants more comprehensive legislation, we in the opposition, both the Conservatives and the New Democrats, will welcome this. If the government wants more comprehensive legislation, I am sure this bill will fit into the context of that more comprehensive legislation.

We are now facing a winter season when a majority of the private zoos will be closed. This is the time when they can spend time reconstructing, building and improving the facilities. If this bill is passed today, it will be a signal for them to do so. We will see that come springtime, when these private zoos open again to the public, they will be improved zoos.

Indeed, when Dr. Orenstein and I told a particular zoo that we were paying a visit, we discovered that massive improvements, and I really mean dramatic improvements, were made in a few days pending our visit. We had sent in people before to look at the zoo and, in fact, they documented that there were improvements that were made, just on the knowledge that we were coming to look at the facilities.

I say to members, pass this bill today. The present legislation is inadequate. Members have received from the zoologists and other people involved in Zoocheck this morning in their mail, a letter that urges members to support the bill. In their latest letter they say:

“The Ontario Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act can, in very limited circumstances, prevent gross neglect or physical abuse, but it does absolutely nothing about the shocking conditions that result in animal suffering or death.

It does nothing about cage size, layout, design, floor space, cage accessories, presentation, psychological wellbeing of animals, health management or veterinarian care, nutrition, animal acquisition and disposition policies, cage labelling, owner expertise, educational programs and a whole assortment of other conditions that must be met in order to run the facility in a competent, professional and humane manner. It does absolutely nothing about public safety!”

It is fairly clear by the admission of the Solicitor General that she is looking into this that she recognizes that the present legislation is inadequate. I say to members that this legislation has worked elsewhere and I ask them to support this bill. I thank members for their attention.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too am pleased to participate in the debate brought forth by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip), Bill 129,

An Act to regulate the Care of Animals kept for Exhibition or Entertainment.

I say at the outset that our party will be supporting this bill. However, I think I will touch on a few areas of concern to myself, and particularly to members of the agriculture and farming community.

The bill, I believe, is quite in order. I do know that some zoos have experienced some very difficult situations and things that probably should never have occurred. I believe Bill 129 will in many ways correct some of the problems that have occurred, particularly in some of the private zoos.

I must admit that I have only visited a couple of zoos, the one at Granby over in Quebec, which is well known to many people, and of course the Metropolitan Toronto zoo at the eastern extremity of this city, and I was very impressed with what I saw. However, we know that many wild animals -- and we have to remember these are animals that were adapted to the wild -- when in captivity run into some pretty major problems that even people who are well-intentioned create for these animals.

The area of concern I have is exhibition or entertainment. I think immediately of hobby farms. I guess a hobby farm is looking after mostly domestic animals in an area; that is done for entertainment and for the love of animals and not particularly for economic gain or any other gain. I wonder in a legal

interpretation of Bill 129, and maybe the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale can comment on this, just what would happen. Where do hobby farms fit into this situation?

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and I know the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is very familiar with the OFA, having been an employee of the OFA for many years in his previous incarnation, has expressed grave concerns about animal rights groups. When I first heard of Bill 129 it was immediately brought forth to me that again animal rights groups and activists were at work trying to interfere and create problems for the agriculture and farming community.

I full well realize, having studied Bill 129 fairly extensively, that it is not in any way, shape or form, part of the animal rights group of well-meaning people who have created havoc in other countries. They tell us that the feather industry has effectively disappeared from the Netherlands because of overactive animal rights groups. They are well-intentioned people; however, things get carried away.

Farmers are always concerned whenever, without infringing directly on their jurisdiction, we have a bill that touches on the care and wellbeing of animals. We are talking about wildlife and we are talking about wildlife in captivity. However, based on some of the experiences of animal rights demonstrations and animal rights actions that have occurred, the agricultural community, I think justifiably, gets nervous.

We do have a very efficient agriculture and farming community. We have a very efficient federation of agriculture looking after farmers’ interests, lobbying -- and that is their job; it is not a dirty word -- on behalf of the people who pay the freight for them. This has become a major concern -- domestic animals at the farm level.

We talk about layers in cages; yes, and they do produce to, and sometimes beyond, 80 per cent on a daily basis. I recall well many years ago throwing wheat out to the poultry in the farmyard. Yes, they were wild and had the run of the place. However, the efficiency left a great deal to be desired. In today’s world, efficiency is the name of the game. However, we always must remember that the man, the agriculturalist, the farmer who owns the animals is probably the one who cares the most for and about his own animals.

It is always of concern when a bill comes in. “‘Inspector’ means an inspector appointed under

section 8 of this act.” Farmers and inspectors, particularly when they are government inspectors, do not always get along very well together,

“The bill requires persons to acquire a licence to operate a garden, park or other establishment that keeps animals for the purpose of exhibition to or entertainment of the public. The bill does not apply to circuses or pet shops.” I would like to see agriculture included in there, the broad definition of agriculture. I think that would put some of the people in rural Ontario a little more at ease.

Slotted floors in hog, dairy and beef barns: our animal activist people frown on slotted floors. As one who has fed cattle for a living, I do want that three and four pounds of gain per day and slotted floors have worked well. However, I think many of the do-gooders in our society, without really realizing some of the implications, tend to get carried away to the point where they have caused agriculture a great deal of concern,

They have caused farmers to take a second look at their method of operation and indeed the possibility of having these types of groups interfere directly in the operation and the caring of their livestock. I re-emphasize that the true farmers -- and I am talking about the vast majority, probably 99.9 per cent of the people who own livestock -- are the ones who really do care for animals, and we are talking about domestic animals.

The humane society, I believe, does a commendable job. The society for the prevention of cruelty to animals also does a commendable job. However, their area of jurisdiction is limited, and I realize the bad experiences of some of the private zoos that have come to light over the past number of years necessitate Bill 129. I would respectfully ask the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale to possibly exclude hobby-type farms and agriculture in the broad sense of the word.

I believe the Ministry of Natural Resources is the right ministry to administer Bill 129. We know that in agriculture the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is supposed to, and does by and large, speak for and care for agriculture, but we are noticing more and more that the Ministry of the Environment, for example, is superseding and coming before the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in many areas that involve agriculture directly or indirectly.

I think this is an area that must be addressed by this government, because our farmers are becoming fewer; they are going through some very difficult economic times. The last thing we need is additional inspectors to come and regulate, regiment and interfere with the normal operation of our farms. Yes, farmers are probably the best policemen of themselves and their neighbours. They do know what is happening at the neighbour’s place, particularly if it involves the lack of care for domestic farm animals. They would be the first to assist, help or report, if indeed nothing can be done, when they know animals are not being cared for in a proper fashion.

In conclusion, our party will be supporting Bill 129. I commend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, and from his knowledge of the farming and agricultural community, I would like him to consider the exclusion of domestic animals and hobby-type farms, possibly in the regulations that will be applying to Bill 129.

Mr. Kanter: I would like to commence by recognizing the concerns raised by Zoocheck Canada and the many individuals and organizations endorsing its objectives. Clearly Rob Laidlaw, as the coordinator of Zoocheck Canada, has spent a tremendous amount of time and effort investigating the issue personally and helping to organize others around this issue. I understand that Dr, Orenstein of the International Wildlife Coalition is with us this morning and that the Society of Ontario Veterinarians and the Toronto Humane Society have also been heavily involved in this matter.

I also want to commend very sincerely the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for refining the concerns that these groups have into legislative form, the legislation that is before us today.

The government agrees that there is a need for action with respect to the care and protection of animals in zoos in this province. In fact, the issue touches on the responsibilities of six or seven ministers, including the Solicitor General, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil), the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) and several others.

It has been decided that the Ministry of the Solicitor General should take the lead responsibility on this issue, as we are the ministry which is responsible both for administering the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which protects animals in distress, and also for public safety, the very two issues raised by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

I would, with respect, disagree somewhat with the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mi. Villeneuve), who suggested that some other minister ought to be responsible. I think we are the appropriate ministry to respond to both of these concerns, the safety of animals and safety of the public; very valid concerns brought forward with respect to discussions of this bill.

However, the government cannot support the proposed legislation in its current form for a number of reasons. First, the scope of the bill is limited to zoos and it therefore results in a fragmentation of responsibility for animal protection.

Let me give the members just one example. There has been concern about puppy mills, kennels that produce a large number of substandard animals. I am just reading from the most recent issue of Animal Action, a publication put out by the Ontario Humane Society, which expresses concern about this issue.

It states that in the absence of any regulations, any guidelines or any minimum standards of any kind, anybody can set up a breeding establishment. It suggests that the Ontario Humane Society has no power to create standards or regulations in this area and the provincial government has not enacted any legislation to control this activity. It examines the possibility of the Canadian Kennel Club doing this.

It says this may not work and deals with the alternative: to persuade the government of Ontario, and the other provinces, to enact specific legislation licensing, regulating and setting minimum standards for the construction, equipment and operation of breeding kennels, a very similar problem, in our view, and one which also requires a response from the government.

The legislation contains no process for appealing a minister’s decision to deny or revoke a licence. I know the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale referred to a number of other licensing provisions. There are, of course, many others in other areas and I think that almost invariably, for fairness, there needs to be such a provision.

Third, the bill designates the Minister of Natural Resources to be responsible for the administration of this act. I have already pointed out several problems that would result from this: first, the fragmentation in having the Minister of Natural Resources responsible for zoos where the Solicitor General is responsible for animals in distress and public safety in most areas.

Fourth, it describes a licensing scheme. There may be other options for regulating zoos and other establishments which should be explored.

Fifth, a broad range of interest groups must be consulted before any legislation in this area is formulated. Yes, I have seen the quite impressive list of people who stand behind Zoocheck. Until we had some new information, very fragmentary information this morning, I thought it was quite significant that no zoos, public or private, were listed as people who have been consulted.

I was pleased to hear that Mr. White of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo, which is highly regarded, is willing to work with the government in this area. We think this is an important and significant addition and I, as a representative of the minister in this case, certainly support that involvement.

I would like to emphasize the fact that it is not just legislation alone that is going to have a significant effect in improving this situation. As the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale stated, just the mere prospect of a visit or the actual undertaking of a visit by him had a positive effect.

I noted with interest in the report by Mr. Laidlaw, which I have had the pleasure to read -- I should not say pleasure, because there is some very disturbing information in here -- which I have had the opportunity to read, that in the case of one of the five operations he visited, he noted that there was new ownership and he expected that there might be some substantial improvements. I was also interested to learn that a second one of the five zoos he visited and accounted in this particular report was considered to be fairly satisfactory. So not all zoos or private zoos are necessarily substandard.

I would say that legislation may be a component. Visits that have been undertaken by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and others have had an effect. I think the very fact of this debate is also going to have an effect on improving standards in this area.

As has been referred to, the Ministry of the Solicitor General has already begun consultations to determine the best way to address the concerns raised by Zoocheck and others.

Yesterday morning, Domenic Alfieri, the assistant deputy minister in our ministry, met with representatives of Zoocheck Canada, Rob Laidlaw and Holly Penfound, prior to the press conference which they held yesterday.

Ministry staff also wish to consult with a number of other organizations such as the Society of Ontario Veterinarians -- I understand it supports this legislation -- and the Metro Toronto Zoo, and we would like to discuss this further with Mr. White and others -- humane societies, the Canadian Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria, the University of Guelph and representatives of pet stores and other establishments that offer animals for sale.

We believe there is a need to consult with all affected groups before a remedial program is formulated. Establishments like zoos, pet stores and others offering animals for sale are the most directly affected by this legislation and they have had very little input to it. Any standards that are developed should be known ahead of time so that those affected by them have time to prepare.

Our ministry will review existing programs dealing with the current protection of animals for display or sale purposes, develop a comprehensive program that will address any concerns arising from the review and present options for consideration by the minister. Such options might include new legislation or amendments to the existing Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

As I indicated, these consultations have already begun with ministry staff and are expected to be concluded within six months.

This will take some time but I would point out to members and those interested in this issue that the implementation of a bill like Bill 129 will also take some time. The passage of third reading will of course take some time and it will take, I would submit, a considerable period of time to implement this particular piece of legislation.

For example, there is a call for regulations to set out care appropriate to individual needs of various species, appropriate diet, appropriate space, privacy and contact with other animals, appropriate physical exercise, the provision of a physical environment appropriate to its needs, the provision of appropriate professional veterinary care, barriers that are adequate to protect the public, feeding and watering areas for the animals that are adequate. These standards are somewhat vague; they will obviously require considerable time to flesh out.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Zoocheck and their supporters for bringing these concerns to our attention. I would like to commend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for raising them in the context of a private member’s bill. We support the objectives of the bill but feel that it is limited in scope, that it will result in fragmentation of legislative authority, another act, another set of regulations, another delivery system and a diffusion of scarce resources and expertise in this area.

We feel a more comprehensive approach is required which cannot be addressed adequately by this bill. I wish to assure all members we will proceed with dispatch to bring forward recommendations to the minister and come up with a new, comprehensive program which will address not only the concerns brought forward by Zoocheck but other issues that need to be addressed with respect to animal care and protection.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate and I want to say, as other members have, that I congratulate my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for his efforts in this regard and for bringing forward this bill for consideration by the assembly.

I also want to say that I, as a member of this House, have found the information provided to me by Zoocheck very useful in consideration of this legislation.

I must say I am a little perplexed by the comments of the parliamentary assistant. I understand his concern and the government’s concern that they want to have proper consideration of protection of animals and the public before bringing in comprehensive legislation. I can understand that. I certainly would be in favour of having broad consultation before developing regulations but, frankly, I do not think it is necessary to vote against this piece of legislation in order for that process to take place.

I think the legislation presented could be accepted, and as my colleague for Etobicoke-Rexdale has indicated, if at some future date the government is going to bring in more comprehensive legislation, that new legislation can incorporate this legislation.

The parliamentary assistant has said he believes the regulations required by this piece of legislation would take a great deal of time to develop. I think that is correct, but I think it is time to start. Certainly the consultative process which has been suggested by the parliamentary assistant would be part of that process of developing proper regulations. I do not think it is necessary to vote against this private member’s bill because of the concern that there should be more comprehensive legislation and that it will take time and it will be rather complex to regulate this problem.

The reason I favour this legislation is that as a northern member I have seen many cases where individuals capture wild animals or in some cases have found the animal young -- perhaps the mother has been killed and the young are left, whether they be bear cubs or fawns or small animals like raccoons or rabbits -- and they think they should keep these animals, make them into pets and in some cases put them on display.

I think of one particular instance which I found most alarming. I had stopped at a gas station, my children were with me and I found they were quite excited when I finished paying for the gasoline because they had gotten the key and gone around to the washroom, and just at the side of the building where the washrooms were, there was a large cage with two large bears in it.

As I can recall, when I went around to investigate, it was just chicken wire around the cage and these were fully grown bears. These apparently were bears that had been found as cubs and were raised by the people and were pretty tame.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what your experience is with bears, but I think anyone who has seen an adult bear will realize that even a tame bear, if it is startled or alarmed, can react in very unexpected ways, and even a declawed bear could easily kill a human being. One swipe of those powerful front paws would kill anyone here. The bear could just do it because of fear if it was startled and unsure of its situation. Certainly that was an unsafe situation.

As I understand it, there are right now no regulations to prohibit this kind of thing. I suggested the police might look into it, but they were not able to take proper action.

I am very concerned about the aspect of safety and I am concerned about some of the information Zoocheck has provided to me about the way that animals are kept and what this might mean for public safety. The examples that have been pointed out were of young children who put their fingers through the bars and had them bitten off.

I am also very concerned about the welfare of the animals themselves. I think it was most inappropriate for these two adult bears to be kept in such a small space. The owners, I understand, did exercise these bears. They walked them on a leash, but that then raises all the questions about public safety as well. It just was not adequate.

I really have some concerns even about some of our public zoos. I have gone to Marineland and enjoyed the show, as much, I am sure, as anyone here who has seen it, but I wonder what it must be like for a whale to be kept in a pool, no matter how large the pool; it must be like living in a bathtub for the whale, when one considers the area and territory that a whale could normally cover in a day. I understand that the life expectancy of whales in captivity, even in the best facilities, is much shorter than it is estimated to be in the wild, and I suspect it has to do with the inadequacy of the space that is provided and the situation in which we find many animals in zoos.

I am not sure that I agree with the parliamentary assistant’s argument, that to pass this legislation would be to fragment animal protection. Again, I think this could be moved ahead with now and that we could include it in the comprehensive legislation later.

I also do not think the parliamentary assistant was correct when he said this affects pet stores and those who keep animals for sale, because it is my understanding that the bill itself specifically exempts them.

Mr. Kanter: The bill does not relate to pet stores or keeping animals for sale, but there are concerns in those areas as well.

Mr. Wildman: What I am concerned about is the suggestion that it should be the Solicitor General who has the responsibility for it. I am not heavy on one side or the other on that, but it does seem to me that the Ministry of Natural Resources has personnel who have specific expertise with regard to wildlife. They have people who are experts on moose, deer, bears, small game and nongame animals.

It seems to me it would make sense to have the agency of government that has the expertise in wildlife be responsible for drawing up regulations to determine how much space an animal needs, what the proper way would be to protect the animal and the public, and ensuring that the animal is treated properly, gets the proper food and has the proper exercise and so on. It would seem they are the people to do it. I do not quite understand the argument for saying that we should put the Solicitor General in charge when the Solicitor General’s responsibility certainly is public safety, but the staff does not have any expertise in wildlife and the requirements of specific kinds of animals.

At any rate, I again commend my colleague for introducing this piece of legislation. When the parliamentary assistant says the government does not support this, I would hope that is not a signal to individual members of the House as to how they should vote on this particular bill. This is a very important issue, one that has concerned me for a long time, and I know it has been a matter of central interest to my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

I would hope all members of the House will treat this, indeed, as private members’ hour and will decide on the merits of the legislation themselves, individually, so that we will have a free vote -- that is how private members’ hour is supposed to be -- on this legislation and that it will be carried by the assembly.

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide some input today on Bill 129,

An Act to regulate the Care of Animals kept for Exhibition or Entertainment. This bill requires people to acquire a licence to operate a garden, park or other establishment that keeps animals to show to or to entertain the public.

It should be noted quite clearly that this legislation does not apply to pet shops or circuses. Licensed applicants must submit a detailed plan which indicates how they propose to care for the animals and also must demonstrate that they have adequate financing to care for the animals properly. Bill 129 sets out standards for providing and caring for the animals and provides for the inspection of the premises of such establishments. Those who contravene this legislation will be subject to a fine and/or the confiscation of the animals.

I have already noted that Bill 129 does not apply to pet shops or circuses. However, it does apply to such places as the Elmvale Jungle Zoo, the Hostery Bird Sanctuary at Severn Bridge, the Ministry of Natural Resources zoo at Midhurst and the Wasaga Beach zoo.

I must admit that I have mixed feelings about this type of legislation. On one hand, I have concerns about the inhumane conditions to which some captive animals are subject in some privately owned zoos in Ontario. As well, I am concerned about the lack of safety precautions for visitors to some zoos in this province. On the other hand, I am worried about what this type of legislation will ultimately lead to, but I will get to that later.

Zoocheck Canada, an organization concerned with the welfare of animals held in captivity, discovered numerous cases of animals suffering because of human ignorance, neglect or, in some cases, greed. Some of Zoocheck Canada’s findings include animals confined in tiny cages that are barely twice their body length, social animals forced to live out their lives completely isolated from others of their own species, animals pacing back and forth or mutilating themselves. These factors alone should be enough to convince all of us here today that some form of regulation or control is necessary.

At the present time, virtually anyone can open and operate a wildlife display or zoo, regardless of his or her education, experience with animals, financing or concern for public safety. This is clearly a sorry situation that demands to be rectified and rectified now. Currently, any qualified person can open a private zoo. Clearly, the existing system is wide open to abuse and as a result there are some extremely poor private zoos and wildlife displays scattered throughout Ontario.

Along with my concerns for animal welfare, I am also worried about the very serious problem of public safety. Some of these establishments are a risk to public safety. They are dangerous, and I am rather surprised that we have not read newspaper stories about individuals who have been maimed or killed at some of our zoos or wildlife displays. There are instances where small children could easily come in contact with such animals as lions, camels, foxes, monkeys, porcupines and raccoons. There were inadequate or no barriers to keep the public a safe distance from these animals.

In some instances, cages are left unlocked and cages are poorly constructed. There are no emergency procedures, poor security or supervision and no adequate fencing. What happens if one of these animals gets loose? What happens if someone is attacked? Where can the public seek a safe haven if an animal gets loose? These are the types of things I would personally like to have regulated and controlled.

Many people are raised in a large metropolitan area where the only wildlife they may encounter consists of pigeons, robins, sparrows, cats and dogs. There is a need for private zoos or wildlife centres. They offer a chance for children and people to view and learn about a variety of species they might not otherwise get to see, but we must ensure that the animals displayed are treated humanely. We must also ensure that members of the public can expect a safe environment for them to come to view these animals.

There has to be a balance and I think Bill 129 accomplishes that. Our wildlife is a precious natural resource that in many cases is disappearing from the face of the earth at an alarming rate. If some of these animals are to be displayed to the public, then we must ensure that they are kept in an environment that is humane and will not kill them off. That has to be balanced with public safety.

We tend to feed and house murderers and rapists better than we do our wildlife, whose only crime is one of roaming freely over our land or through our skies. What a sorry state of affairs when our criminals have more humane treatment and quarters than our wildlife. That just does not make sense. The time has come, and it is long overdue, to treat our animals with the humane respect they so rightly deserve. The time has come to ensure that the public is safe while visiting private zoos or wildlife displays. I think my comments clearly indicate that I support the principle of Bill 129. I do have concerns about pieces of legislation that could lead to things such as this in the future.

I would like to point out that I am particularly enthused about

section 7 of Bill 129, which clearly lays out the standards of care for animals in private zoos or wildlife displays. As a farmer and pet owner myself, I can certainly appreciate these standards, which include an appropriate diet and amount of drinking water, the provision of appropriate space, privacy and contact with other animals, an opportunity for the appropriate amount of physical exercise, the provision of a physical environment appropriate to its needs, whether at the licensee’s premises or away from them, and the provision of appropriate professional care by a veterinarian.

These standards for care make complete sense. You simply cannot argue about them because they are logical if animals held in captivity are to he treated properly and fairly.

In closing, I would like to note that the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals can act in very limited cases to prevent gross neglect or physical abuse, but it does nothing about public safety and it does nothing about important factors in cage size, layout design or floor space. This bill, I believe, covers that.

Mr. Philip: I want to thank the members for their constructive comments. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry points out that hobby farms or farms are not covered by the bill. In order to reassure him, we could simply add that to the exemption

section in

section 1. I am sure that would meet with his approval.

The member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) pointed out the need for balance between the needs of important purposes that zoos serve and the need for safety. I appreciate that he comments that this balance is being achieved in this bill. The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) represents a northern riding. With his great interest in the field of natural resources and wildlife, I think he brought a particular understanding to the bill. I appreciate his endorsements and his comments, as well as his concern about some of the abuses this bill is attempting to deal with.

I must say I was disappointed with the comments from the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter). He suggests that the Solicitor General is the best person to deal with this and that yet another study is being conducted.

We had looked at the possibility of whether the Solicitor General should have authority over this bill. After consulting with numerous people and looking at legislation throughout the world, we came to the conclusion that, as my friend from Algoma has pointed out, the Ministry of Natural Resources and its staff members are best versed in issues related to wildlife, and therefore would be in a better position than the police in dealing with this.

The member for St, Andrew-St. Patrick says that the scope of the bill is limited to zoos. That is correct. I had pointed out earlier that there are numerous pieces of legislation, which this government is not abolishing, that deal with care, or indeed with the interaction of man and animals. He is not suggesting we somehow have a comprehensive bill dealing with all of the world’s problems or all of Ontario’s problems related to animals. It simply is not possible. This bill deals with one problem. If he wants to introduce a broader bill at some other point, then he can do so.

He points out there is no appeal section. Of course, there is an appeal

section in every piece of legislation that deals with a decision by government. That is the appeal through the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman in this province would have jurisdiction over this. It is in his act, so it does not need to be put in this act.

He also says that there are many other ways than going the licensing route. In fact, we have studied this. The lawyers working with me who are familiar with this have looked at it. They say that this is the best route to go and that this is the way it works in Great Britain and in other jurisdictions.

The member says that our visits to zoos have had a positive effect and have resulted in some changes, but the positive effect they have had is because the private zoos realized legislation was being brought down and that it was going to be debated today. He talks about the need for more consultation. We have consulted.

I ask the members to support this bill. If the government wants to introduce other legislation later, it can do so.

NATIONAL SPACE AGENCY

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. O’Neill has moved resolution 44.

Motion agreed to.

ZOO LICENSING ACT

The House divided on Mr. Philip’s motion for second reading of Bill 129, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Allen, Black, Breaugh, Callahan, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Cureatz, Daigeler, Faubert, Harris, Hart, Henderson, Jackson, Kozyra, Laughren, LeBourdais, Martel, Matrundola, McCague, McLean, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Rae, B., Reville, Sterling, Stoner, Wildman.

Nays

Bossy, Epp, Fawcett, Fleet, Haggerty, Kanter, Keyes, Lipsett, Lupusella, McGuigan, Miclash, Morin, O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Pelissero, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Sola, South, Sullivan.

Ayes 29; nays 20.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

The House recessed at 12:10 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: I have a statement that illustrates some of the systemic problems in our health care system.

There is a gentleman named Robert Sanderson who, while visiting his daughter this summer, had a medical emergency. He was taken to a small hospital in Dundalk, from there to a hospital in Owen Sound and subsequently to a hospital in London, the Victoria Hospital, where he indeed received wonderful care.

The problem is that it is now November 3, 1988, and Mr. Sanderson is still in the Victoria Hospital, occupying a very expensive bed, when in fact what he requires is an extended care facility or a chronic care facility.

The other difficulty is that Mrs. Sanderson lives in the east end of Metropolitan Toronto. She must travel to London to be near her husband and help support him in his recovery and she is piling up hotel bills, even while the Ministry of Health is piling up bills in respect of Mr. Sanderson’s care.

This matter has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Ministry of Health not only by the Sandersons but also by officials at the Victoria Hospital, and nothing has been done. This kind of folly has to stop and it should stop soon. There are good ways to care for Mr. Sanderson and not in the Victoria Hospital.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Cousens: An incident occurred at yesterday’s meeting of the standing committee on resources development. This is truly indicative of this government’s method of dealing with the issues. The Supreme Court of Ontario ruled on October 20 that the Ontario Highway Transport Board should have the authority to issue international and interprovincial trucking licences in Ontario, not the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton).

Yesterday, the resources committee was surprised to learn of the minister’s intention to appeal this decision and perhaps more surprised by the method of the announcement. It was only through pointed questioning that the deputy minister matter of factly revealed the minister’s intentions.

The minister’s decision to appeal the Supreme Court ruling is no small potatoes. It affects the legality of each and every licence issued to a trucking operation in Ontario since 1954. Perhaps the minister hopes that truckers will not take notice of his actions and the matter will be quietly resolved with no need of a formal announcement. Perhaps the minister is embarrassed to announce outright that yet another piece of Liberal legislation will snake its way through the court system, largely the result of inadequate attention to detail.

I suggest to the minister and his government colleagues that they take a proactive role in drafting new legislation rather than the reactive role to which they are becoming accustomed. Ontario taxpayers cannot afford to have much-needed legislation hung up in the court system, a waste of valuable time and money.

STUDENT FUND-RAISING

Mrs. Fawcett: Last year at this time, I rose in the House to pay tribute to a group of fine teachers and students who had excelled in giving.

This year, they have done what many deemed the impossible. With their annual Terry Fox run in September, staff and students of East Northumberland Secondary School surpassed last year’s mark and raised $14,288, which now brings their grand total to $50,000 -- the highest not only in Ontario but in all of Canada.

I was delighted on Friday, October 27, to join with my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) for the presentation of the cheque to the Canadian Cancer Society. In his address to the student body, the minister praised them for their efforts and impressed upon them the need to continue their understanding and commitment to the disabled.

While there, someone remarked, “I wonder what special ingredients are present in this school that others lack?” I believe it is the dedicated staff which is the catalyst, people like head secretary Lillian Peister, teachers in charge, Ann MacDonald and Tim Larry, and Principal Don Dawson, people who care that the proper values are stressed along with the academics. I am sure that all members will once again salute this remarkable achievement by the staff and students of East Northumberland Secondary School in Brighton.

NATIONAL SALES TAX

Mr. Laughren: Most Canadians are aware of the fact that the federal government has launched its so-called tax reform program. What a lot of Canadians do not know, however, is that phase 2 of that program will take place after the federal election if the Progressive Conservatives win. What a lot of Canadians do not understand is that phase 2 consists of the biggest tax grab in the history of this country. The second-largest tax grab was what this Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) did last spring with the Ontario budget, when he grabbed $1.3 billion from the Ontario taxpayers.

The intention of the federal government is to roll in the provincial sales taxes with its new national sales tax program. What the Treasurer of this province has done is criticize the federal program without saying whether or not Ontario will acquiesce and be part of that national sales tax program. It is not appropriate for the Treasurer simply to sit back and criticize the federal program without telling us one way or another whether he intends to take Ontario into that national sales tax program. It is simply not appropriate, because the Treasurer will be regarded as an accessory to the fact if that ever happens.

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

Mr. McCague: We are delighted that the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) have all endorsed the recommendation regarding the Water Transfer Control Act made by this party in its minority report on free trade. In that report, tabled last month, we recommended that the government of Ontario either withdraw Bill 175 or substantially amend it to clearly prohibit the large-scale transfer or sale of Ontario water.

To our New Democratic friends, I would say that while their minority opinion did not address this issue, we welcome their support of our position. To the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources, I would say how pleasantly surprised we are that their government has indicated its willingness to accept and implement fully one quarter of the Progressive Conservative Party’s recommendations on the free trade agreement. This shows that they are not totally afflicted by water on the brain and gives us some hope that they will eventually support and implement our other recommendations.

The degree of protection provided by the bill is negligible when compared to that offered by the federal bill, and I would hope that the minister will look at it carefully before he comes back into the House with Bill 175.

HAP EMMS

Mr. Owen: I would like to draw to the attention of the Legislature the passing, on October 23, of Leighton Emms. In Barrie, Hap Emrns was referred to as “Mr. Hockey.” Hap Emms was born in the Barrie area in 1905. Hockey was always a great love. He spent 11 years in the National Hockey League with the Montreal Maroons, New York Americans and the Boston Bruins. However, he is best remembered to the people of Ontario as one of the pillars of Junior A hockey. In fact, the Ontario Hockey League named one of its two divisions after him.

Hap Emms helped found the Barrier Flyers Junior A hockey club and coached it to two Memorial Cup championships. When Hap Emms moved the Flyers to Niagara Falls in the 1960s, he added a third Memorial Cup to his collection for that city. Hap Emms managed to leave behind a legacy of cups and wins in the area of hockey, but I believe an even greater legacy which he left behind him was a sense of decency and sound standards which he instilled into the boys who played under him.

When a youngster plays in the Junior A league, he must leave the security of his family, friends and school for a strange community and a new school. Hap Emms had a wonderful sense of humour, but he never seemed to overlook what a boy was going through and was always there to support and guide. We offer our condolences to Mabel, the widow of Hap Emms, his son Paul and the grandchildren. We thank them for what Hap Emms has left behind by way of hockey achievements, but more, we thank them for what Hap Emms has left behind of fine men in the community who learned their values from a caring coach.

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

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. McLean: My comment is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and concerns the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia. I noted with interest that the recent Ontario Hospital Association newsletter indicated his ministry has provided the necessary funding to enable the Alzheimer’s day care centre at St. Joseph’s Home in Guelph to treat patients seven days per week.

I still maintain that the minister should give serious consideration to using part of the Huronia Regional Centre as a place for Alzheimer’s patients to live and be treated. It would solve a problem about keeping staff at the centre employed as we gradually move developmentally handicapped patients out of the facility and into the community. I urge the minister to use the Huronia Regional Centre for the care and treatment of Alzheimer’s patients.

Mr. Speaker: This completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

Statements by the ministry. None?

Oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister will have seen the reports in the press today of the death of Brendon McLean.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder if we could have the attention of the members. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to ask a question. Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: Brendon McLean died on October 10 while waiting for a heart operation. When he finally got in to see his specialist, Dr. Feindel, on October 4, the specialist told him that he should have surgery “tomorrow.” He could not: he was put on a waiting list. Mr. McLean died on October 10.

The minister, with great fanfare, last June announced the establishment of a so-called bed registry which she said would begin to deal with this problem. I wonder if she could explain why it is that some six months after her announcement, the bed registry still has not happened.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition and to all members of this House that it is with sympathy and concern that I hear these kinds of stories. It tells me of the need to make the kind of changes we have been talking about within our health care system. But it also is extremely important for us to remember that in fact the Ministry of Health and the people of this province rely on physicians to make the decisions about who requires urgent care and to ensure, based on their very best medical judgement, that people most in need of that care receive it first.

Regarding the cardiac registry, at the present time the project is under development with the participation of physicians.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is putting doctors in an impossible position with the shortage of nurses and the problems in critical care units. She announced in June the establishment of new critical care beds for heart patients. Those critical care beds cannot be established for the simple reason that there are not the nurses in place in those hospitals in order to allow those beds to be opened.

Mr. McLean was diagnosed in May as having severe angina. He waited six weeks for an angiogram. He then had a series of other tests. It took all this time for him to become eligible for the surgery, which in his case was obviously a very real necessity. Is the minister saying that doctors alone are responsible for Mr. McLean’s death, that it is their decisions, in the face of an incredible number of emergencies and urgent situations, which in fact are the cause of what happened? Is that who she is blaming?

Hon. Mrs.

Caplan: I have said on numerous occasions that, given the demands and the incredible and compelling stresses on our health care system, which are not unique to Ontario, the enormous challenges facing us -- ageing population, changing demographics, and as I have said economic realities, and specifically changing technology which is allowing us to do much more than we ever dreamed possible: the modern medical miracles -- what I am saying to the member and what I have said in this House is that it is not my place nor his nor anyone’s to assess blame but to acknowledge and recognize that these are enormous stresses and challenges facing us.

There are many steps that we must take to deal with these and I think we are making enormous progress. Yes, we rely on the physicians and their best medical judgement to make sure that those in need of urgent care get it first.

The ministry is doing its part as well. We have acknowledged and have flowed the money for additional resources in cardiac beds and in chronic beds. We are dealing with the technologists who are needed to give that kind of treatment and, in fact, we have expanded training programs for respiratory technology as well as cardiovascular perfusion. Let me tell members, these are new specialities that have responded to the changes in medicine. This is the sort of thing that we are finding. Many changes have taken place in the past decade and will continue to take place in the future.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me just ask the minister to consider this case, since she is obviously not prepared to listen to what is taking place in our hospitals today. Arthur Mills learned in March of this year that he needed a triple heart bypass. His surgery has been cancelled twice and he has now been given a new date. It was first scheduled for October 28. Then it was rescheduled for November 4. Now it has been cancelled again, at the end of October, with no date given.

Mr. Mills’s doctor is Dr. Baker at St. Michael’s Hospital, and we have spoken with Dr. Baker’s secretary. Dr. Baker has 44 patients waiting; seven of them are classified as urgent. The waiting time for so-called elective surgery -- and the minister knows how misleading that term can be -- is now about six months. Last month Dr. Baker had to cancel 13 surgeries. There are seven intensive care beds for cardiovascular cases. They are all full. They have funding for four new intensive care unit beds, but they cannot get the nurses.

The minister has known for all this time that the nursing crisis and the lack of central direction and leadership from her ministry are as responsible for what is happening to these patients as anything else in the system, yet she has not managed to do anything about it. How can she justify that?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think, in fairness, it is important for us to acknowledge, as we do, that yes, there are many challenges facing us, but much has been done and much will continue to be done. Not only will we have a central bed registry operating to help physicians notify patients where they can get treatment as quickly as possible and to help them make those decisions by giving information across this province, because this kind of treatment is provided in a number of centres, but we also have increased the capacity by some 500 places.

One of the things that we know is that this technology has increased the number of people who have been recommended for this surgery by some 50 per cent, and we have responded with a cardiovascular coordinator to make sure that we have a coordinated program across the province. We know that the challenges facing us will not be resolved overnight, but we must work together in this House, because health care is not a partisan issue, to resolve the challenges and make the changes necessary to ensure our health care future.

Mr. B. Rae: I have a new question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). It was my understanding he was going to be here today, so I think I will stand it down until he turns up.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Just before I ask him the question, I would like to congratulate, on behalf of our caucus, the people involved with OMMRI, Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc., and the people of the province of Ontario whose municipalities currently have the blue box program in place. We have just celebrated today the one millionth blue box, a program that was initiated by our government, the Progressive Conservatives.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for a question.

Mrs. Marland: Last week the Liberal government voted against my private member’s bill, which would have required municipalities to offer recycling programs. The minister and his parliamentary assistant, the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland), are on record as favouring mandatory recycling for municipalities. They both answered yes to the Project for Environmental Priorities’ 1987 questionnaire on this issue, which was just prior to the election last year.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mrs. Marland: My question is that today, as we heard the minister discussing the benefits of recycling, I wonder if he would tell this House why his government voted against a bill that would ensure this great success story across the province.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I thank the member very much, to begin with, for the compliments she has paid to so many people in the province who have been successful in making recycling work, particularly at the blue box level. She has appropriately pointed out individual environmental groups around the province, municipalities and all members of this House from all sides. I know that both opposition critics, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) and the member for Mississauga South, served at the municipal level and were strong proponents of recycling then.

I think the answer is quite simple. The recycling program in Ontario has been so eminently successful in terms of volunteer actions. When the two opposition critics and others who sit on the other side of the House and our side of the House were there as individuals of municipalities, they worked along with environmental groups and established recycling in this province.

It has been exceedingly successful. We have over a million households now on the blue box recycling program. We have some exciting new initiatives in terms of composting, in terms of apartment buildings, in terms of specialized equipment, which we believe are going to make the program grow right across the province. With close to 100 municipalities on it now, with new municipalities coming forward to participate almost on a daily basis, I think when we have a program that is that successful on a voluntary basis, it would have more of a dampening and condemning effect to impose recycling on a compulsory basis.

If we saw, for instance, that it was not working -- and this is where the member asked the question about compulsory --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps you might leave something so that you can respond to the supplementary.

Mrs. Marland: I am not surprised to hear the minister talk about the success of the program. In fact, there are 92 municipalities presently in the blue box program, but that is really only 10 per cent of the 843 municipalities in Ontario.

In spite of this program, we still have a very real crisis in having to deal with the 99 per cent of the garbage that is not recycled. The minister’s recycling program will not solve the problems now facing many municipalities across the province whose landfill sites are bursting at the seams, with no solution in sight.

Will the minister tell us if he is going to offer some real solutions, or is he going to continue to allow the problem of the lack of landfill sites and affordable space to continue for those municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think the thrust that we have taken in the field of recycling is doing exactly that. When people ask me what should be the major thrust in terms of the provincial government and its assistance to municipalities, I invariably say that it is in the field of recycling.

I was in Etobicoke as it was launching its -- I believe it was the 95th Ontario municipality involved in recycling. I think in 1984 or 1985 there were only 50,000 blue boxes out there. Today, there are well over a million blue boxes and people are participating in it. That tells me the program is working exceedingly well in this province.

When I see that we now spend $7.7 million as a government, as compared to $750,000 before we came into office, I see that as a major investment. I anticipate that investment is going to continue to grow as more and more municipalities become involved in the kind of waste management projects that are designed to manage waste as opposed to dispose of waste. The more our government can do to assist municipalities and work with them -- and this is what they are asking us to do on a voluntary basis -- the more we can do in that direction, the faster this program will grow.

It will grow in the kind of way where there will always be markets for those goods. That is the way it is working at the present time.

I congratulate the two critics on the other side for the role they have played, along with everyone else in the province. I think they should be excited about --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs. Marland: I am very excited about what we are doing with rec