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

November 9, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

CANADIAN FORCES BASE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

CANADIAN FORCES BASE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ZEBRA MUSSELS

NORTHERN TELECOM LTD

LOTTERY PROFITS

ARTISTS’ WORK

REMEMBRANCE DAY

ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS

MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

OTONABEE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

POLISH INDEPENDENCE DAY

REMEMBRANCE DAY

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

BUSINESS INFORMATION / RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ENTREPRISES

RESPONSES

BUSINESS INFORMATION

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

BUSINESS INFORMATION

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAY EQUITY

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

DRIVERS’ LICENCES

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

MINISTRY NAME

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER

SKILLS TRAINING

MOTIONS

DISCHARGE OF BILL 36

REFERRAL OF BILLS 64 AND 65

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

BUSINESS INFORMATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO BAPTIST SEMINARY AND BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1989

TOWN OF IROQUOIS FALLS ACT, 1989

GRAND VALLEY RAILWAY CO INC ACT, 1989

ONTARIO HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION ACT, 1989

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1989

CITY OF GUELPH ACT, 1989

EAST YORK-SCARBOROUGH READING ASSOCIATION INC ACT, 1989

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT, 1989

ASTCAM CO LIMITED ACT, 1989

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

COURT REFORM STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

CANADIAN FORCES BASE

Mr Reycraft moved resolution 30:

Mr Reycraft: I want to begin my remarks this morning by providing some context for the resolution. Canadian Forces Base London, for those who are unfamiliar with it, is a military base that covers some 80 acres inside the city of London. For a long, long time, the base was known as Wolseley Barracks, but in an era that provided us with Air Canada in place of Trans-Canada Airlines, that gave us Canada Post, that turned the Department of the Environment into Environment Canada, the armed forces bases all became known as CFBs, and in this case, CFB London.

It is rather interesting that while the federal Liberals under the leadership of Pierre Trudeau seemed intent on renaming everything that was distinctively Canadian, the Conservatives under the leadership of Brian Mulroney now seem intent on eliminating those very same things. But that is probably another debate that is best left to another day.

Wolseley Barracks, or CFB London, has existed in London since 1883. For all that time, the base has been the permanent home of the first battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, and the first RCR is the oldest regular force infantry in Canada. It has been part of Wolseley Barracks since the base was established 106 years ago.

Currently at the base, there are some 866 regular forces military personnel. The base also employs some 353 civilians. In addition to that, Canadian Forces Base London also serves as a training centre for 1,300 reserve forces who make up the militia unit that also calls Wolseley Barracks its home.

An observer might easily conclude that a resolution like this one is simply based on a parochial interest, that it is a kind of not-in-my-backyard reaction in reverse and that it is just a local reaction to a federal government decision strictly based on local concerns. But I want to assure this House that while I am genuinely concerned about the local impact of the closing of CFB London, I am also very concerned about a much broader issue. I think this decision, while it is certainly bad for London, is also bad for the Canadian taxpayers, and thus bad for Canada.

I am bringing this resolution forward because the closing of the base and the relocation of the first RCR will take over 1,200 jobs out of the city of London and over 2,000 people away from that city, and it is doing all that at great inconvenience and with no significant saving to the Canadian taxpayer. In fact, I suggest that the decision will result in an increase in costs to the taxpayers of this country.

CFB London is a highly valued part of the city. Within London there is very broad support for keeping the base open and keeping the first RCRs right there in London. It is the home they have always had. Last Friday, I attended a press conference with Mayor Gosnell and the member of Parliament for London East, Joe Fontana. Mr Fontana was presented at that press conference with a petition bearing some 5,000 names by Jock Shields, who has been the chairman of the Help Save CFB London Committee. That petition was neither the first nor the largest that Mr Fontana has received.

Indeed, many, many hundreds of Londoners have signed petitions calling for a reconsideration of the decision. Both Mr Fontana and Mayor Gosnell have clearly and frequently expressed their unconditional support for keeping CFB London open, not just because it is a bad decision for the city but because, like me, they are convinced it does not save tax dollars. It is a bad decision for Canada.

The member of the Legislative Assembly for London Centre and the Premier (Mr Peterson) recently met with Mr Shields and others of the save-the-base committee. After the meeting, the Premier was quoted in the London Free Press as saying this: “I’m not in favour of what they’re doing.... No one has identified any particular major cost savings coming out of this move.”

Mr Wildman: Is he going to raise it at the first ministers’ conference?

Mr Reycraft: The point I am making is that there is very broad support for keeping the base open within the city of London. Indeed, even the peace activists in this country are unhappy about the decision to close the base. Just two weeks ago, the national chairman of Ploughshares Canada spoke against the CFB closure when he was doing an interview on national television with the deputy mayor of London, Jack Burghart. The national chairman referred to the foolhardy action that the federal government is taking in closing CFB London and armed forces bases right across Canada.

My resolution is based on really three arguments. First of all, I believe that while the federal government argues that closing the base is necessary to reduce the deficit and is a cost-cutting measure, the relocation will not save money at all. It will in fact cost money to relocate the troops, and that cost will more than negate any savings.

The second point I will make this morning is that while the federal government has said that the reserve forces, the militia at CFB London, who number some 1,300, are to remain in London despite the closure, the reality is that without the equipment and the training and the expertise that can be provided by the regular services personnel from the first RCR, the role of the militia in London will be reduced significantly.

The third point I want to make this morning is that the move will also have tremendous regional economic impact. It will result in a loss of 1,219 jobs and a loss of some $70 million to the local economy.

Mr Wildman: Just rich, fat cats come from there.

Mr Reycraft: I will make the point that London is not the rich, fat cat city that most people seem to think it is. In fact, if you look at median incomes, both Petawawa township and the village of Petawawa have median incomes that exceed those in the city of London and those in Middlesex county. The closure of CFB London and the relocation of the troops to Petawawa simply cannot be justified.

The federal government has predicted that by closing the base it will save an estimated $9.2 million per year and that there will be an overall net savings of $164 million over 15 years. Time is far too limited this morning to go through a comprehensive analysis of the federal government’s projected savings, but I do want to say that, quite simply, it has done two things. It has overestimated the cost-reduction that will result from closing CFB London and it has underestimated the relocation of the troops. It has underestimated that relocation at both ends.

It has underestimated what it will cost in terms of unemployment insurance payments and in terms of retraining at the London end of the relocation, and even worse, it has grossly underestimated what it will cost to house and to service the increased population at Petawawa.

We have been in frequent contact with officials in the Petawawa area, and the indications there are very clearly that the water-servicing facilities, the sanitary-sewage disposal facilities and the educational system in the area are simply not, at this point, adequate to be able to handle this increase in population. Providing those will result in an enormous cost that will far offset any savings

I want to conclude my remarks at this point. I look forward to the comments that my colleagues will make on this resolution.

Mr Wildman: I think it is most appropriate that we are debating this matter in the Legislature this morning, just before the weekend of Remembrance Day. The RCR has a long tradition, as was indicated by my colleague, a tradition that many people will be thinking about this weekend, in service to this country and to protection of the freedoms that we hold dear here in this Legislature and throughout Ontario and Canada.

I must say that I agree with the presenter of the resolution in that, in my view, this is being penny wise and pound foolish on the part of the federal government. To move the base from London to Petawawa has not been shown at all to save significant amounts of money, while at the same time, it is going to inevitably produce enormous dislocation.

I think it is ironic that the Progressive Conservative federal government, which claims to be in favour of strengthening our armed forces and has attacked my party and the Liberal Party as being unprepared to put resources into the armed forces, into upgrading the capabilities of the armed forces, would be taking the moves it is now taking, not just in London but across Canada, with regard to a number of military bases.

I think it is also ironic that at the same time as the federal Conservatives are spending enormous amounts of money to change the uniform of the armed forces -- a move that is supported by many because of the view that the previous government, when it unified the forces and brought in the new uniform, was denying traditions that were important to the military, but which is costing an enormous amount of money -- this is being done by a government that says it is committed to upgrading the armed forces. It is spending enormous amounts of money on uniforms, on textiles, while our armed forces are the laughing stock of the western alliance with regard to equipment and numbers.

I think it really belies the words of the Prime Minister of this country when he says he is committed to a strong defence force for this nation and a strong role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the North American Air Defence Command.

I think it is interesting that my colleague should mention that his colleague from London, the Premier of this province, is quoted as being opposed to this move by the federal government. When he said that, I could not help but interject and ask whether the Premier was going to raise this matter at the first ministers’ conference. His brother Liberal Premier from Prince Edward Island is committed to raising the matter of the closing and downgrading of the base at Summerside, Prince Edward Island, at the first ministers’ conference.

If the Premier of this province is as committed as apparently he says he is to preservation of the base in his own home town, surely he is going to raise this matter with the Prime Minister and the other premiers during the conference that is now going on.

If, however, the Premier of this province does not raise this matter with the Prime Minister and the other premiers, does that indicate he is not really committed to the preservation of the base in London? Does that really indicate he is going to put more than just words but he is actually going to bat, not just for this province but for his own constituency, to protect the jobs that are important because of the base in London?

I understand Mr Ghiz, the Premier of Prince Edward Island, has stated that if the issues of Meech Lake are reopened at this first ministers’ conference, he intends to raise the issue of Summerside as part of the bargaining chip in the Meech Lake accord discussions. I am a little surprised at that. I do not quite see the connection between the downgrading of certain military bases in this country and the negotiation of a Constitution for this country.

But obviously the Liberal Premier of Prince Edward Island sees the connection, just as in the past, I suppose, premiers of certain provinces have seen connections between frigates and constitutions. Then again, that was a Conservative Premier, was it not?

However, if Ontario’s Premier is as committed to London and to the CFB London as the Premier of Prince Edward Island is to CFB Summerside, I think we will see reports and we will see on television the serious concerns of the Premier being raised by the Prime Minister during that conference.

I would be most disappointed if the Premier of this province did not make his views on this matter known more forcefully to the Prime Minister of Canada. If, for some reason, he does not raise it, I do not think it would be fair to say that it somehow slipped his mind because, after all, he not only is the Premier of the province but he represents the city of London in this House.

I suppose he might accept the argument, and I would have a hard time disagreeing, that the closure of the London base really is not central to the Meech Lake discussions, but the Prime Minister of this country has said that this conference is not really about Meech Lake, this conference is about the economy of this country. Surely the closure of a base in London is about the economy of London, so it would certainly fit into that context and fit into that discussion to say, “We are opposed to the loss of jobs in London, Ontario, because of the ill-advised policy of the federal government.”

I expect the Premier to make that position clear when he is discussing economic questions with the Prime Minister of Canada. If he does not do that, he is failing his responsibility not only to the province of Ontario, but to the RCR, to the veterans of this province and to his own community of London.

I hope I am right in expecting the Premier to raise this issue in Ottawa. I hope that is the case. If by some chance it does not happen and if it is not public, if it is not on television for everyone in Ontario, in Canada and in London to see, then we will know that the Prime Minister of this country is not being informed by the Premier of this province about the serious concerns held by his colleague, his other colleagues in London and the people of London about this policy of downgrading the base in their home town.

I understand that the premiers and the Prime Minister had dinner last night and that they spoke at great length to one another. I heard descriptions on radio this morning about the language that was used in that discussion. But I understand it was the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland who did most of the talking at that meeting, that he spoke about 40 per cent of the time and that these discussions were about Meech Lake.

Again we get back to Meech Lake -- the very topic that the Prime Minister of this country says is not the main subject of the discussions at the conference. Certainly the conference, which is supposed to deal with the economy, as Prime Minister Mulroney has made so clear, is a tremendous opportunity for the Premier of Ontario to fight for the people of his own community and to fight against the downgrading of the base in London.

As I said earlier, it is certainly most appropriate that we are debating this matter in this House just before Remembrance Day. I take very seriously the feelings that I know most veterans must have when they think about the sacrifice made by their confrères in both world wars and the traditions that the RCR have in London and how they are disappointed in the federal Conservatives’ failure to live up to the rhetoric they used prior to the second-to-last federal election when the Conservatives attacked the Liberals and said it was time to strengthen the armed forces.

They went on at great length about the lack of modern equipment, the understaffing of the armed forces, the need to upgrade our commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the North American Air Defence Command and the need to be able to guard our shores adequately rather than being dependent on other nations for our own protection. But what have they done since? The first thing they did was to discontinue our commitment under NATO to Norway and then they limited our commitment in West Germany.

Maybe it is a legitimate thing in terms of overall defence policy to say that Europe today, particularly with the changes that are taking place in eastern Europe, is strong enough to handle its own defence, but surely there are few in this House who would disagree with the view that it is the responsibility of Canada, in conjunction with its allies, of course, to protect Canada and to have a force that is credible and can handle the responsibilities not just of military protection, but things such as search and rescue and emergency measures in terms of natural disasters and the need for assistance to help find people who have been lost in the bush and so on.

Surely it is incumbent upon this country to meet its own obligations.

I say that we were not told the whole truth, quite literally -- I am being as careful as I can -- by the Prime Minister of this country when he campaigned and said he was going to strengthen the armed forces. His record since then has been the complete opposite and the major commitment that has been made by the federal government to the armed forces of this nation is in terms of uniforms.

Uniforms are nice; people tend to look pretty -- you look very nice in yours, Mr Speaker -- but they do not do much to strengthen the armed forces. They may help morale, I will admit that. They may, indeed, help morale. I know your morale is always very high, Mr Speaker, it has to be to carry out your functions in this House, which I must say you do with aplomb.

However, I will conclude by saying that if the federal Tories have failed to live up to their commitment to the armed forces of this nation and are closing down bases across the country, including the base in London, and transferring, consolidating and downgrading the armed forces bases across this nation with the justification that this is being done because we need to save money, all I can say is that saving money is not even being served in this case. There must be some other reason.

I want to also conclude by saying that I hope, trust and expect the Premier of this province to meet his obligation by raising this matter with the Prime Minister at the first ministers’ conference.

Mrs Cunningham: I appreciate the opportunity that the member for Middlesex (Mr Reycraft) has provided us to speak to this most important issue in the House. I would like to say right from the onset that I arrived late and did not hear the member’s comments. I apologize for that, and when my comments are concluded I will be leaving to go into the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, which is investigating Bills 46 and 47. For the members who have travelled so far, I truly apologize, but our time here is tremendously limited and those are the tax bills that have to do with OHIP.

I have never avoided this issue at all. In fact, I was looking at the comments I did make upon first glance, which I have discussed with Mr Shields and Colonel Lawson, and I have no problem at all in relooking at the position, given the fact that at the time all of us thought this was one of the major cost-saving efforts on behalf of the federal government to look at some kind of reduction of the tremendous debt that we have in this country and in fact in this province and one that we are concerned about in every way possible, because we are passing on these tremendous liabilities to our young people.

I know the save-the-base committee is appreciative of this opportunity for all of us to take a look at the base and what it has contributed to London in the past and what it can contribute to London in the future.

I especially appreciate the comments of the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman). I thank him for his support on this issue and I too am very much concerned about the lack of leadership the Premier of this province has given. We have not seen him actively involved in any statements. As a matter of fact, I object this morning; all of us have had two weeks’ lead time and we do not have the Premier here to speak to it. Others have had to rearrange their time to be here. I think it is an extremely important issue that affects the constituency he represents and I share the concerns of the member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not want to take the member’s time because I know this is important in her own community, but to be fair, the Premier of the province is at the first ministers’ conference.

The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of information.

Mrs Cunningham: I am aware of that and I would have thought then, since the first ministers’ conference had been planned with a lot of lead time, that perhaps this debate could have been arranged on another day and that would have made good sense. That was the intent of my statement.

I want to be very clear. This is a motion that could have been put at any time. We are looking down the road to a closure of a base. The long-term plan is 1992. I am glad we are working on it now and my comments relate to the importance of that particular base in the city of London and I will stand on those comments. This is a motion that could have been presented when all members from London could have been here. It is presented today and the Premier is not here.

Mrs E. J. Smith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Premier would not be speaking on a private member’s bill, regardless of the nature of the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for the point of information. The member may continue.

Mrs Cunningham: There probably could have been another opportunity and a process for all members representing the city of London and Middlesex and anyone else to make the same statements that are being made in this House.

You should note, Mr Speaker, that the member for Middlesex has one issue in the way of a private member’s statement in this session. That is my understanding. He may, if he is extremely important, have two. That information was received from the clerk’s office. I think it is extremely important to know, just because I think there is more to this. This is politics that we are talking about this morning, and I am very aware of it. There are other issues on the public agenda today and there could have been a better time when we could have all been together at Queen’s Park and made this statement on behalf of the province of Ontario. That is my point and I do not want to belabour it.

I want to thank the save-the-base committee for its excellent brief, as well as the mayor of London for his brief. I think it is important to discuss something that is going to affect the quality of life in our city, the jobs of our citizens, the history and the future of the military in southwestern Ontario. It is an important issue. I commend the save-the-base committee and I commend anyone who has been involved in this particular process. I think the 1987 white paper regarding the revitalization of the reserve forces or the total force concept was most valuable to me.

I have had opportunities to discuss it with people at the federal level and certainly with people in my own community and I support the importance of co-location between regular and reserve forces whenever possible.

I have been extremely involved over the years in the activities at the base as a member of the board of education and we have supported the kind of training that our young people have received and that is so necessary, not only to our own city and our community, but to Canada as a whole.

I would very much fear for the loss of that opportunity for young people as well as the others who have been very much brought to the public attention because of this debate. I think it is a wonderful opportunity for the citizens of what we call the garrison city of London to talk about the future of this Canadian Forces Base because of the kinds of promises that have been made in the past that have not been kept, and certainly because of the slow deterioration of that particular base and services to our city.

The issue for me, personally, right now has to do with the results of such a decision, the family disruption the loss of jobs it would cause. These issues are important to all of us who represent the public, as you well know, Mr Speaker, and I have been in contact with many citizens.

Good information is the only hope we have as we look at tough decisions that have to be made in southwestern Ontario, in Ontario and in Canada as a whole. I guess the greatest disappointment for me is that I do not think we do have good information to support this particular action on behalf of the federal government. I have updated information, and the facts I have received from the minister in Ottawa do not coincide with the information I have been given from either the city of London or the save-the-base committee.

In my position, I am not going to take a strong stand on those facts because I think they have to be reworked and I think there needs to be a lot of opportunity for consultation with the federal government on this.

I know the federal Minister of National Defence, the Honourable William McKnight, will agree with me that this is certainly a fair issue for reconsideration and that the arguments that were put forth by the save-the-base committee are responsible and reasonable.

The member for Middlesex has said that is not what the minister is telling him. I would hope that the member for Middlesex and the Premier will use their considerable power and their responsibility to open up these negotiations and have meaningful discussions, because I do not think two sides in this argument will ever solve the problem.

I have been involved in representing the public over a number of years, some 16, in the city of London, and the only time I have had any meaningful resolution to any problem has been the time when we have sat down, often outside of the public eye, and come to some kind of sensible, responsible conclusions. If I have ever seen an issue where that has not happened, it is this one and there are more opportunities.

I am sorry that it has to be politicized in this way. I hope I will be able to be involved. I think the group from London dedicated to saving the base should be commended. I would like to thank them for their efforts. I hope that from time to time they will meet with me. I will do whatever I can to discuss this resolution with the minister, the Honourable William McKnight. It is true that I have not done that in the past. I make no bones about it. I thought the negotiations or the discussions were proceeding. I see with this motion that at least the member for Middlesex feels there ought to be more support for those discussions and I am happy to be part of them.

It would be very difficult for me to say anything but positive things about this resolution. My great regret is that the timing was not such that the Premier could be here in this House to prove to all of us whether it is appropriate or not or in another arena, but this is an important issue for him as well.

I thank the members for the opportunity. I hope that we will come to a resolution. I will certainly plan a very active role in those discussions, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. I will be supporting the resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Cureatz): Hearing the debate on private member’s notice of motion 30, the member for Middlesex, we thank the honourable member for London North (Mrs Cunningham). In continuation of rotation, the honourable member for London South.

Mrs E. J. Smith: It is my pleasure to speak to this resolution. My colleagues and I have each agreed to approach this subject from a somewhat different point of view. As such, I am allowed to present my personal position that indeed I am an army brat. For those who do not know what this means and might think it refers to my present behaviour, it in fact means that I am the child of a permanent force army officer, and indeed spent many of my years living in army barracks.

Let me say, Mr Speaker, in this esteemed House that I am very proud of my father, who was indeed one of the youngest, if not the youngest, colonels in the Great War and who was one of the most decorated soldiers in that way -- in a war, in fact, when fewer decorations were given out. As you would assume, I was raised in a home where Canadianism was part of our daily bread; where patriotism and duty to the country were stressed and demonstrated.

I well understand that a nation cannot assume that it has a hold on peace and security or on its right to the democratic process. They indeed are not inherited gratis, but they must be constantly earned. They cannot be handed down from generation to generation, but each generation must be its own watchdog. Indeed, the armed forces are only a part of this picture. We must teach the values of democracy in our homes; in our education system, we must sharpen the wits of our young people to make sure that democracy is never undermined in this country; and in society at large we must continue to pass laws that embody the meaning and intent of the democratic system.

But what are laws? How can they be interpreted if we do not put in place at the same time those people and those forces to make sure that the laws have meaning? Is there anyone in this House who is so naïve as to assume that we could have civil law without courts and police forces? As we respect these laws, so indeed we must pay the price for them -- in past generations in lives, in this generation in dollars and cents.

If we mean it when we say that we must protect property, safety, and enforce the laws, then we have to put our will into that meaning, and so as well on the international scene. Canada has a proud role of defending democracy in two wars, of fighting back with others fascism in Europe and imperialism in the Pacific. We helped in those, we continued after the wars to be very active in many peace-keeping operations around this world and we remain ready to serve the United Nations in this peace-keeping, and indeed in that very important role of helping to supervise and enforce free elections in countries that are newly coming into democracy.

Canadian residents, including the residents of Ontario, do not wish to see this role of which we are proud diminished in any way. It is jingoism to be proud of Canada’s role? Is it extravagance to keep up this important peace-keeping operation? My colleague, the member for Middlesex, has demonstrated that indeed we save no money by the closing of such barracks as Wolseley, and indeed, even if this were not so, the people of Ontario and the people of Canada would not support this.

The role of the armed forces in the enforcement of international law must remain to stand ready and to be there when they are called upon, but the forces serve two other roles. In the case of London, which is an inland community, I would say this is especially true of the army. They must be in our midst where we know they can serve us in any emergencies or disasters that might occur within our communities.

Second and more important, they, like the police, must be a presence in our midst that reminds us at all times and makes us aware of our responsibility and of our pride. How is this sense of awareness preserved if we put them instead in isolated areas consolidated away by themselves at arm’s length from those they serve? This does not give the message that we need in a democracy, when we set them apart and when we let them represent themselves and their expertise in more isolated settings. No, they need to be in our midst representing our will, pride and responsibility both nationally and internationally.

Across this nation communities have been proud of their regiments of which they have a long history in which they have made great sacrifice. My father was part of the Lord Strathcona’s Horse and later involved as district officer commanding in London with the Royal Canadian Regiment. But we have others across this country, the Van Doos in Quebec, the Princess Pats, the Black Watch, the Toronto Scottish, the Perth, the Essex and Kent, only a few that are household words but which have served to be the backbone of our patriotism and our connection to our obligations.

This weekend across this country and in Ontario communities people will come out, including their children, to honour veterans, to remember our dead and to recommit ourselves. I am always amazed at how moved I am and how moved these people are as they come to honour these veterans. They own them, they identify with them and they do not wish to lose them in their midst. London, like many other Canadians, urges the federal government to reconsider its present move and to leave this army base in London.

Mr Villeneuve: I too rise for the very few moments left for my party to support the member for Middlesex, my friend and colleague. We come from ridings that are very similar and certainly I support the concept that, yes, one is always concerned when changes are made such as withdrawing Canadian Forces Base London from a long-established position in the community. I certainly support the member for London South in her great speech about Remembrance Day. I think we all support that and we are certainly all in favour.

However, I have had a number of private members’ bills come to this Legislature and they never go anywhere. We talk for a whole hour here and whether they are accepted or rejected they go nowhere. I am afraid this is what is happening here. The concern I have is that the member for Middlesex brings this issue -- a very important issue -- to the Legislature in private members’ hour when he knows full well that not very much of anything will occur following a vote or a unanimous support of his resolution.

I can recall back in a political era prior to this government when Bill Davis represented Brampton. He represented Brampton very well. I do not remember any private members having to get up to bring forth a message to try to support something that was happening in Brampton, so there is something rather strange. A communication is lacking or there is lack of confidence in the Premier when right in his backyard a member has to bring forth to this Legislature a private member’s bill trying to get the attention of the Premier of this province to do something. It is somewhat strange.

The late John Robarts represented a riding in the city of London. Do members recall any private members’ bills coming from the back benches to support something that was happening or not happening in the London area?

Mr Epp: Do you support it or don’t you?

Mr Villeneuve: I sure do, but it is somewhat strange to the member who just interjected that this has to come from the back benches. A former Solicitor General also, of course, supports it.

My colleague and friend the member for London North very much supports it. Sometimes I even think that there are political overtones to a private member’s bill coming in this fashion, political overtones of the most crass political kind. That is my concern. It is somewhat strange that the Premier in his backyard has to be reminded by the member for Middlesex that there is going to be a problem here. The mayor of the city of London is very much on side and very active in the save-the-base committee, and I commend him for that.

The member for Middlesex, coming from a rural riding, I think, could have supported some things that are a lot -- he has to build on his strengths. I am a farmer; he is coming from a professional teacher’s position. I know his family is very much in agriculture. I go back to the 4-H days when I met judging teams from across the province and Middlesex was very much there. In the Junior Farmer days, at the Lake Couchiching leadership training camp, Middlesex was always there. Has the member been to his local grain elevator lately? They cannot go in; they are all jammed.

Why not get something going that could clean the air and be positive for agriculture? Build on his strengths. We do not want to see the base in London closed, of course not, but using politics to do what this government does so well -- putting the blame at the board-of-education level, the municipal level, the federal level but not shouldering its responsibilities --

We support this bill.

Mr Tatham: I rise in support of the member for Middlesex’s resolution. I will start off with Tommy:

I went into a public house to get a pint of beer.

The publican he up an’ says, ‘We serve no Redcoats here.’

The girls behind the bar, they laughed an’ giggled fit to die.

I outs into the street again an’ to myself, says I,

‘Oh, it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ ‘Tommy go away’;

But it’s ‘Thank you, Mr Atkins,’ when the band begins to play.

The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play.

Oh, it’s ‘Thank you, Mr Atkins,’ when the band begins to play.

Some people would say: “Oh, that is Rudyard Kipling’s verse. It is jingoistic or worse,” but remember Sputnik, the Soviet satellite and, “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” That was just 20 years ago and said by Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon.

The world is the same physical size, however, with instant communication satellites and jet aircraft, we have telescoped travel time and information time. What is Canada’s role in the world of the 1990s and the 21st century? What can we contribute? What have we done in the past? How many nations have paid attention to the commandment that thou shalt not kill?

Let’s look at the record. The year was 1609 and the place the shore of Lake Champlain. A matchlock musket touched off with a smouldering rope wick set ablaze a guerrilla war which continued for 80 years and almost drove the first settlers out of the St Lawrence valley. Time will not permit to recall all the skirmishes encountered through the 17th and 18th centuries in Canada.

Coming to the last great contest for Canada, the War of 1812 to 1814, the official military historian, C. P. Stacey, says that the chief credit for the saving of Canada in 1812 was due to British soldiers. It was scientifically defended by men trained for the job. The regulars did more than supply the leadership; they usually did the lion’s share of the job.

As Damon Runyon said, “The race isn’t always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.”

John Terraine, in his book The Right of the Lion, said that the British people collectively, leaders and led, committed between the first and second World Wars the cardinal error: they made a picture of future wars.

“A general should never paint pictures.” This was said by Napoléon. He meant not only generals, but it also applies to political leaders. We should never try to force facts into preconceived patterns.

Lord Dowding’s doctrine “the fear of the fighter” was demonstrated and successfully so during the summer of 1940, the Battle of Britain. It was won by the tightest discipline of all ranks, from the air chief marshal down.

After the capitulation of the Belgians, it was intensive training, the discipline and leadership of General Montgomery that extricated his division from its position at Rabat. Monty had to move his division into transport across the front of an enemy attack without lights, over 25 miles of minor roads and then get his troops dug in by dawn in an unfamiliar sector, to meet the overwhelming German attack. They were on their way to Dunkirk.

Discipline and training have gone on at Wolseley barracks for over 100 years. Ted Farmer enlisted in the Royal Canadian Regiment through Wolseley barracks in 1938 at the age of 15; boy soldier, pay 50 cents a day. Before becoming a regular soldier, he had achieved the princely sum of $21.70 a month. Ernie Bond enlisted at Wolseley barracks. He served overseas with the 62nd light anti-aircraft, Bofors, as did many other thousands of young men and women from across western Ontario.

In Oxford county we have splendid cadet corps -- army cadets in Ingersoll and Woodstock, sea cadets in Woodstock and air cadets in Tillsonburg. We are proud of the cadet corps, the sponsors and the cadets. The young people take part and learn self-discipline. The people in the counties around Wolseley barracks have looked to the personnel from Wolseley for professional leadership, the Perths, the Oxford Rifles, the Elgins and others. Our own county regiment, the Oxford Rifles, is now part of the fourth battalion of the RCRs, London and Oxford Fusiliers.

Let me share the fact that, in zone B2, that is Oxford, of the Royal Canadian Legion, we have eight branches, Norwich–Tillsonburg, Ingersoll Beachville, Thamesford, Embro, Tavistock and Woodstock -- with approximately 3,500 members. Our Oxford county naval veterans’ association has over 600 members, and on Remembrance Day, wreaths are placed not only there but also at memorials at Chesterfield, Plattsville and Dixsons Corners. Our peaceful, rural Oxford scene belies the fact that many thousands of young men and women enlisted for service during the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War.

What will Canada’s role be? How can we help in this world with an exploding population? Perhaps as peacekeepers, similar to our activities in Cyprus, but we need professional leadership here in military district number 1, otherwise we will be abdicating our responsibility to a tradition that goes back in Oxford to 1798.

Let us support this resolution. To conclude with some more of Kipling:

“You talk of better food for us, an schools, an fires an all.

We’ll wait for extra rations if you treat us rational.

Don’t mess about the cookroom slops, but prove it to our face,

The widow’s uniform is not the soldier man’s disgrace.

For it’s Tommy this, and Tommy that, an’ ‘Chuck him out, the brute!’

But it’s ‘Saviour of ’is country’ when the guns begin to shoot.

An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ everything you please,’

An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool. You bet that Tommy sees.”

Mr Reycraft: I believe that I am allowed to use the balance of my caucus’s time, as well as the two minutes that are available to me as the mover of the motion. I want to thank my colleagues for their comments this morning. I am pleased that all five of those who spoke are going to be supporting the resolution. I appreciate the support from the member for Algoma.

I want to assure him that the Premier is fully committed to opposing the closure of this base and I am sure that over the course of his few days in Ottawa this week, attending the first ministers’ conference, that he will indeed have an opportunity to present his views to the Prime Minister of this country. I only hope the Prime Minister will listen to them.

I appreciate the support from the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus. I regret very much the approach taken by the member for London North. I should have known, when she criticized the Premier for his absence here this morning, that the Premier is where he should be on this day, in Ottawa at that first ministers’ conference, trying very hard to address what is quickly developing into a constitutional crisis in this country, and as well, presenting the views of this province with respect to the goods and services tax, a tax that apparently nobody in Canada, save and except the members of the federal cabinet, seems to want.

The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr Villeneuve) expressed a view that private members’ resolutions often did not seem to go anywhere. I want to assure him that I will be forwarding a copy of this resolution, along with a copy of the Hansard, to the four federal members who represent the city of London and Middlesex county; to the minister responsible, Mr McKnight; to the Minister of Finance, Mr Wilson, and to the Prime Minister of this country. If he would like to send a note along letting those officials know that this information is coming and adding his endorsement to keeping CFB London open and in London, I would be delighted to have that support.

I want to also express my concern for the militia. The militia has long been a presence in southwestern Ontario, and a militia, a reserve force is important to any community. It is important to the country. Without the presence of regular military forces at CFB London, I think the effectiveness of the militia there is going to be jeopardized as well. I think its future is placed in some jeopardy.

The Acting Speaker: This concludes this portion of the debate on ballot item 25, Mr Reycraft.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Breaugh moved second reading of Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr Breaugh: I think this is probably a most appropriate forum to introduce this notion of a licence for the operation of a boat. It is something that has been discussed in public at some length. I believe it now is apparent, to me at least, that the province of Ontario ought to take the lead in Canada in sorting out precisely how one would go about that.

A colleague of mine, the member for Simcoe East (Mr McLean), has introduced kind of a stand-alone bill which would provide a separate licence. In thinking through the matter, however, I thought that a better way was to take an existing statute, the one that we use for most other motor vehicles, and that is the Highway Traffic Act, and to simply add a classification to that which would be called perhaps a marine operator’s licence. That would get us around the problem of creating a new bureaucracy. It would use an existing system for licensing that we now know and it would provide a nice broad legal framework on which you could base the laws that would cover boaters.

There are some difficulties with the bill and I think I would like to try to address them initially. There is a bit of a jurisdictional problem on the water. No one seems quite sure whether the waters of Canada are covered by the federal government, the provincial government, municipal governments, harbour commissions or whom. None the less, we have all understood that there is a need for some enforcement procedures.

So outside the little lake where I operate, Lake Ontario, on the waters there will be on any given day an RCMP patrol boat out there, a patrol boat from the Ontario Provincial Police and a patrol boat from the region of Durham police. So notwithstanding the jurisdictional problems that might be there, police forces are aware that they do have an increasing and sometimes an alarming number of accidents occurring on the water and they need to patrol those waterways.

Some would argue, of course, that there is not enough enforcement, and that will be a problem. The moment you actually do put in a licensing system and you have a legal framework, you will then raise people’s expectations -- quite rightly -- about enforcement. But I believe we need to think this process through and this bill is the first step in that, in my view.

Like many people, I have been interested in boating for some time, since I was a small kid and we used to run boats on a little lake called Beaver Lake. On a busy day, there would be maybe a dozen boats out there. The highest horsepower that anybody had when I was around was about a 25-horsepower Evinrude. There was not much danger, there was not much need to control the traffic on the lake, there was not as great a pollution problem as there is now. But I must say last year I got the bug again and I spent a very pleasant summer boating on Lake Ontario and the Bay of Quinte and the St Lawrence, and it is fun.

For those of us who are at an age where we would like to buy a cottage, the first thing you realize when you go shopping for cottages these days is that most of us cannot afford a cottage. Many of us would have thought that a boat is too expensive, and some of them certainly are. We all go to the boat shows. We get our soft-soled shoes on and we walk around the multimillion-dollar yachts. It does not take very long, and you do not have to be a genius, to figure out that on a member’s salary here you are not going to be buying many yachts.

After that, you begin to figure out that even if your grandmother left you the fortune and you could afford to buy the yacht, a 300-gallon fuel tank is something that is pretty expensive to fill up and you could not afford to operate it.

But if you shop around, as I did, you will find that there are smaller cruisers that are made here in Canada, very fine products equipped here in Canada, and you can afford those. You can in fact enjoy an afternoon on the lake, any of the lakes around Ontario, for about the same kind of money as it would cost you to take your family to the motion pictures for an afternoon. It is possible. You just reduce your sights a little bit and you can do it.

More and more people are turning to that, and that creates the problem I think we have to address now. If you come into the Toronto harbour on a bright, sunny afternoon, even in the middle of the week, it will soon become apparent to you that there ought to be some kind of licensing process at work here, because in the Toronto harbour you will see something that is a little unique but not that unusual. You will see industrial freighters moving through the eastern gap, you will see pleasure craft of all sorts and sizes all over the place, you will see ferries working a regular schedule, you will see paddle-boats.

Anything that will float is in that harbour on a given afternoon and in numbers that correspond to what you see every morning on the Don Valley Parkway.

The scary thought is that most of them, I hope, have had some boater training but very few of them will have much in the way of a licence requirement. If they are commercial operators, they require a licence. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, on their own initiative, have taken up the cause and done a little licensing program of their own, but of course visiting cruisers do not necessarily have those licences.

One of the things that became apparent to me last year is that perhaps I should get a little refresher course and so I took the Canadian Power Squadron course put on by the Oshawa Power Squadron at Donevan Collegiate. It is a useful exercise in terms of boater education, learning the rules of the road for the waterways, learning a little bit about your boat and how it handles, a little bit about basic navigational skills, but I was struck by one thing that one of the instructors said to us one night.

He said this, and it has all come true unfortunately, “Some time at the beginning of the boating year, someone will not follow the proper procedures for refuelling a boat and the boat will explode and be completely destroyed and perhaps someone will lose his life,” and that happened. He said, “Some time during the course of this boating year, a very experienced sailor will go out on Lake Ontario when it’s a little rougher than it should be, be hit by a spar or a piece of wood, fall overboard into a very cold lake and die,” and that happened.

He said, “Some time during the course of this boating year, someone will rent a boat he is unfamiliar with and that boat will sink and there will be loss of life involved in that,” and that has happened. He said, “Some time during the course of this year, someone will rent a houseboat and not be sure of how to operate a houseboat and get in difficulty with it and there will be property damage and loss of life,” and that too has happened.

He said, “Some time during the course of the year, someone will go out on the lake after the boating season is over with and get in trouble and we’ll have to go out and rescue that person,” and that happened just yesterday. A fellow took a 22-foot motorboat out on the lake. The motor conked out on him. He had some problems. The rescue boat from Pickering had to come over to the Whitby harbour and pick him up off a buoy. The water in Lake Ontario at this time of the year is pretty chilly to get dumped into the lake. The rescue operation is pretty expensive to operate.

All of those things happened, and the tragedy of course is we know that. I think we all really know that there ought to be some licensing provisions, that there ought to be better enforcement on the waterways. That need is apparent on any holiday weekend, anywhere through the Trent-Severn, anywhere in the Muskokas, where anyone can see what is happening on the waterways of Ontario. So I think the problem is apparent to most of us.

Many are reluctant to say, “Go to a licensing system,” but the truth is you cannot send a police officer out there if there are not any laws to enforce. That is the basic problem. You cannot take away a licence if they do not need a licence in the first instance. The truth is if the kid next door at your cottage next summer hops in his father’s new speedboat with 200 or 300 horsepower -- you can now buy a production boat that will travel on the water at 65 to 70 miles an hour -- if that kid jumps in that boat and rams your dock, it may cause a problem but it is not apparent that a law has been broken.

You cannot take his licence away because he does not require a licence, and if he is of a particular age you probably cannot even sue him because he is not an adult. So I think it is time that we began to think about the process, the licensing process, the requirements.

I think it is also safe to say that if the public wants to, there are a multitude of power squadrons that offer educational and safety courses. There are high schools and community colleges that do the same thing. There are boating clubs and yacht clubs that do the same kind of thing. So it would not be hard to write a regulation that acknowledged the work that those people do in educating people in boating safety. It would not be hard to turn your mind to how one would do the licensing provision. This bill is an attempt to do that with a minimum of fuss and bother.

I think the overall question is the one that we should be asking ourselves. I heard Ontario’s Solicitor General (Mr Offer) comment after yet another unfortunate boating tragedy this summer that yes, Ontario ought to think about licensing the people who operate boats. I think that is way overdue.

It is ridiculous that on my boat I have to have the boat registered, and it is; I have to have a licence for the VHF radio that is on the boat, and I do; I have to have a licence to operate the VHF radio that is on the boat, and I do. But I do not have to have a licence to operate the boat. That is silly. There is no question about it that there are boats that are worth a lot of money on the water all the time. People who operate those boats ought to be licensed.

Nobody I know wants to insist that you have a licence for some kid to take a canoe out on the lake, so I have attempted to put in here the same acknowledged cutoff point, that it would be 10 horsepower or more that required the licensing. I have attempted to put in the bill a provision that we want to teach our young people how to operate the boat safely, so the requirement is that someone on the boat has the licence and that anyone else on the boat can operate the boat. In the traditional sense of sea, the captain has the papers and there may be others on the crew who operate the vessel for a period of time.

I commend this bill to the members to think about because I think it is important that we begin this process. I will be interested in the debate that follows this morning.

Mrs Marland: I rise with pleasure this morning to support Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act. It is rather surprising that boating regulations come under the Highway Traffic Act. However, they do. I, in supporting this bill, commend the member for Oshawa for his foresight in bringing forward legislation which is obviously long overdue.

It is an interesting aspect of our affluent society that we are concerned in a province the size of Ontario with the amount of water that is available in our province; that, in speaking of recreation, we are now faced with a situation of density of the operation of boats for recreational purposes on waters in Ontario, both lakes and rivers.

I think another spinoff from our affluent society and our increased standard of living today is we not only have people who are purchasing many more boats, many more powerful motorboats, but we also have a great number of people who are renting these kinds of boats. I think where we are dealing with someone who is renting a boat, perhaps we are dealing with an area where members of the public, who are also on those lakes and waterways, are even at greater risk because if somebody is renting, very often he does not have the interest in the protection of the boat itself.

It is the same as renting a car. When cars are rented, people are not as protective of them as they are of their own vehicles, and I certainly think it applies to boats as well. But also, people who rent boats generally do not have the opportunity to have the accumulative experience of operating boats on a regular basis. Therefore, to require all boat operators to be licensed, I think, as I said a moment ago, frankly is long overdue and it is basic common sense.

If we look at two uses of motorboats, we are looking first of all at transportation, and certainly people who operate boats for transportation have other licences that they have to comply with, some of which I will not repeat because the member for Oshawa has just outlined requirements to be able to be licensed to use certain equipment on boats of a certain size. Certainly the operators of transportation boats, cruise boats, tour boats of that size already have to meet certain licensing requirements.

But then the other kind of boat is recreation, and frankly I think it is a marvellous skill for young people to learn at an early age if they have that opportunity, but I also am very concerned about young people I see operating very powerful boats that even in a physical sense are beyond them.

I recognize that in this bill the member for Oshawa has been very careful not to address the subject of age. I also at this point want to give recognition to my own caucus colleague the member for Simcoe East. The member for Simcoe East introduced for first reading in May of this year his bill to legislate and control boating in Ontario. The bills are probably reasonably similar because they certainly have the same goal. The only difference is that the bill of the member for Simcoe East, I notice, proposed a horsepower of 25 horsepower and the bill of the member for Oshawa mentions 10 horsepower. Frankly, I prefer the 10-horsepower figure.

When we look at anyone operating a boat for recreational purposes we have to look at what it is he is doing. If they are touring around the lakes to visit their friends or go shopping or going out just purely to cruise, I happen to be someone who perhaps does not support the excessive speeds that now are available to these boats. Frankly, I do not think it is necessary for a boat to have 200- and 300-horsepower motors. That is another issue for another day, but I do not think it is necessary for a boat to be able to go 65 miles an hour.

But I can assure you that I have a tremendous concern when that boat is going 65 miles an hour with someone behind the wheel who in some cases cannot even see over the wheel because he is a very young person. Both in age and in a physical sense, they are very small. I think this presents a tremendous hazard and I think safe operation of these boats for licensed boat operators has got to come and it has to come very quickly.

When you see little seven- and eight-year-olds operating boats with 40- and 50-horsepower motors and you see them operating them at very high speeds for that size of boat and that size of individual -- I realize I am targeting young people, but frankly this summer on the lakes I have noticed this newest type of boat, which is a little fibreglass two-seater boat with a 40- or 50-horsepower motor on the back. It is sort of the modem version of what we used to call the sea flea, which used to go like a bat out of you know where. People used to think that was fine, just stir up the water, stir up the environment with tremendous noise under the guise of recreation.

Frankly, primarily I support the operation of all boats safely, but I question why it is our society has found it necessary to keep adding more and more speed to recreational boating. I recognize we need ski boats because people like to waterski, including myself, but you need a boat to go 35 miles an hour to waterski, and maybe 40 miles an hour if you want to do it barefoot, which is not my category.

Mr Breaugh: The images are really something here.

Mrs Marland: As the member for Oshawa says, he is enjoying the images, but I assure the member for Oshawa that I am not so far over the hill that I do not waterski any more.

That leads me to another subject, which I hope this government might take a look at through regulation, and that is the issue of jet skis. I think any of us who have been anywhere near recreational waters in this province in the last two or three years recognize that jet skis themselves can be a hazard, especially for people who are in the water swimming. Jet skis admittedly have a dead throttle or whatever the term is so that as soon as you let go of the throttle the jet ski dies, but while they are going they are very fast and powerful. They are a certain size; they are not as big as a boat, but they certainly are very hazardous to people who may be swimming in the water.

There should be some regulation for jet ski operators, I say to the member for Oshawa, as well as for boat operators in terms of boats with out-board motors.

We have the power squadron which is a marvellous opportunity for people who are serious boaters, and most serious boaters of large cabin cruisers and large cruise boats take a power squadron course. I am not suggesting that kind of requirement be mandated, but I certainly think power squadron instruction of some sort would be a great goal for this government to encourage operators of boats to take.

It is amazing when you are out trundling around -- we have a comparatively small boat. After being on the lakes for 40 years and operating a boat, I think very safely, as I do insist the members of our family do -- by the way, our children will tell you that when they were young, they were not allowed to take the large boat out. In fact, they hardly get the opportunity now because I feel that is our boat and they should provide their own.

We always felt that when the children were young and our friends and neighbours at the cottage operated in the same way, it was great for a young person to take out a little outboard with a five, six or seven horsepower motor and learn the skill and relationship of that boat and that motor to the water, to the weather, and most of all to other boat traffic. I am talking about 20 years ago when there was not the density of traffic there is today on the lakes. I think that the fact we now have the kind of density we do means the problem is extremely accelerated. We do not have the solution to that problem and the hazard that it poses today.

In closing, I will just say that there is a forward-thinking direction in this bill and I certainly hope the current Liberal government will heed the implications of not taking action in the interests of water safety. I feel people are put at risk by not even knowing common courtesy and the rules of the road, as it were, the rules of the water. We are very strict about obtaining motor vehicle driving licences. In fact, we have a minimum age of 16.

A motor vehicle is a death weapon in the wrong hands and not being operated properly. I suggest that the kind of high-powered boats we have available in Ontario today are equally potentially a death weapon in the hands of someone who does not respect what it is he or she is operating, does not know how to operate it or does not know the rule of water safety as far as boating is concerned. I certainly hope this bill will be supported by all parties.

Mr Miller: It gives me a lot of pleasure to rise this morning and speak on Bill 73, but first of all I would like to just congratulate the member for Oshawa and the member for Durham East (Mr Cureatz), who is the Second Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House. I think it is refreshing to have two members taking that position. I would like to think that things are working much more smoothly in the Legislature this session because of their leadership. Again, I would like to pay tribute to their work with regard to the House.

First of all, I would like to indicate to the member that I believe the bill he has brought forward is timely. Some comment was made this morning about private members’ hour not being productive, but I feel it is productive and gives an opportunity to debate issues from all sides of the House on concerns that are so important to everyone in Ontario.

This bill that has been brought forth certainly is one that is timely. I know the member for Oshawa has a new cruise ship and we are pleased he is able to do that and take advantage of the recreation facilities we have in Ontario, because we do have a lot of water and we have a great tourist area. There is no reason why members of this Legislature and all members of the province of Ontario cannot take advantage of that, so we are pleased with that.

I understand this bill and its purpose, the licensing of individuals to operate motorboats in a manner similar to the licensing of drivers of road vehicles. I support the intent of Bill 73 to advance safety on the water, but I cannot support it in its present form for a number of reasons. This gives me, as the parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. an opportunity to present the government’s position and to indicate to the Legislature what direction the government is taking.

The popularity of water-based recreation is growing rapidly, and I indicated that in the beginning. Ontario boaters are in a unique position to enjoy a vast resource and move across the water between three provinces, two countries and half a dozen states. We are very fortunate to have access to all those resources. The Trent-Severn waterway, the Rideau Canal and Georgian Bay and the Thirty Thousand Islands are renowned among boating enthusiasts for their scenery and history.

I would like to add too that my riding of Norfolk is along the north shore of Lake Erie. From my early days, we have spent many hours and days along that lake. We always looked across to Long Point with a lot of anticipation of some day reaching that and setting foot on it. It seemed so far away. We got that opportunity only in the last few years. As a matter of fact, when they located the Hydro plant at Nanticoke they talked about bringing the ships of seaweed right into Nanticoke, which seemed like such an impossibility but today that is happening.

It has a rock base and they have cut a channel that is capable of handling those ships from the St Lawrence Seaway and they are bringing coal. Since that point in time, Stelco has put in a commercial dock to service its industrial park and its steel plant at Nanticoke. It is extended out in the lake and it really has opened up Lake Erie for boating for commercial purposes and also for recreation purposes. Port Dover and the Grand River are being developed. With the north shore, the Welland Canal, there is access to everyone in the province, giving a connecting link for our whole water system.

These wonderful attractions make boating an extremely popular form of recreation in Ontario. It is estimated that there are more than one million pleasure boats in Ontario. Half a million are powered, from small runabouts to luxurious cruisers. The unpowered craft include sailboats, canoes, rowboats and inflatables. Over four million Ontarians --

Mr Wildman: There are a lot of inflatables in here.

Mr Miller: Sometimes, from time to time, it does inflate a little bit but mostly we can sift the chaff and get the real facts.

Over four million Ontarians and about 700,000 US residents use our waterways each year, but we are starting to see some negative side-effects of all of this activity. Reckless behaviour and 75 or 80 boating fatalities in an average year is really what we are speaking about safety.

Bill 73 is aimed at making our waterways safe and enjoyable, but it does not address the full range of issues and concerns. Making boating safer is not as simple as licensing motorboat operators. I see three main areas of concern: one, the jurisdictional responsibility for the waterways; two, the safety of these waterways; three, the need for boating education.

I think this morning gives all three parties in the Legislature an opportunity to have input. This government is listening carefully. First, our responsibility for administration and regulation of the waters is divided among three levels of government and many departments. This presents difficulties in drafting legislation affecting public use of waterways that historically have been and still are largely under federal jurisdiction. Much of the existing legislation and regulations are old and intended to govern commercial, not recreational use of the water.

My second point concerns safety. Safety has to be paramount, not only with the government but with all members of this Legislature. The government of Ontario is committed to establishing and upholding the highest standards of public safety wherever possible throughout the province. No one is more familiar with the lakes. We have to guard, to protect, because those Great Lakes can react so quickly. Lake Erie is one good example. Even strong fishing tugs have gone down with much loss of life in recent years, as a matter of fact, so safety has to be considered. We also have to protect ourselves when we are using those waters and use our own judgement in that nature.

Safety is also an environmental concern. The boating boom has raised related issues such as pollution control, shoreline access, the invasion of privacy and property and many others.

It is tempting to believe that passing legislation to license motorboat owners would solve these problems, but again there is much more to it than that. While we see clearly the benefits of regulations, we also recognize the need to provide appropriate support programs aimed at training, education and enforcement.

We know many of the accidents and injuries occurring on our waterways could be prevented by improved skills and greater knowledge of the boating environment, but there are wider implications to be considered. The cost of establishing and maintaining education testing and enforcement programs would be substantial. Who is to assume the responsibility and expense of ensuring that standards can be met? Apart from the practical difficulties involved, it would represent a vast expenditure to develop education programs and literature and provide the large number of training staff to administer such a program.

This is why an interministerial boating jurisdiction committee has been put in place to review some of the issues and concerns I have mentioned. This committee is also looking very carefully at some others, including boat licensing and registration, operator licensing and safety education, policing and conflict between land and water users.

Therefore, I believe it would be premature to consider specific questions before the committee has fully examined this issue and several perspectives and made its recommendation.

I indicated in the beginning that we support the principle of the bill. We commend the member for bringing it forward at this time. I think it is timely because it will give us an opportunity and also give the government a push to proceed and move forward with the regulations, and also to bring them to the Legislature where this really has to be dealt with. Sometimes the opposition have been dragging their feet at some point.

Those are our comments. We appreciate the fact that we have been able to participate.

Mr Wildman: First, I would like to congratulate my colleague the member for Oshawa for bringing forward this bill for consideration by the Legislature. It is very timely and a most important issue because as other members have indicated this morning, boating traffic on lakes and rivers in Ontario has just exploded. The number of boats and types of boats, some of them very high-powered, has caused a good deal of congestion.

In my part of the province, where we perhaps do not have the large numbers that you have in some parts of southern Ontario, even on the lake where we spend a lot of time in the summer, on a weekend it is busier than some of the freeways around Toronto. The problem, as my colleague has indicated, is that some of those boaters are very inexperienced. Some are young, but I am not just talking about young boaters.

I saw one person get into a boat -- luckily with a very small motor; I think about a seven-horsepower motor -- who went zipping around the lake looking at the motor, without looking where the boat was going. I could not believe it.

I want to speak about one other aspect. I think we do need to license boaters. I agree with my colleague that we need to have better training, and there are training programs available. But I want to talk about the aspect of enforcement. I hope we would have someone, perhaps the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas), the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, speak to this debate because the question of enforcement is crucial.

I would like to read into the record a portion of a letter I received from a constituent. This constituent runs a marina on St Joseph Island in my constituency. This was a letter he wrote to the Ontario Provincial Police. I will just read portions of it:

“My major concern is the increase in boater drinking and rowdyism which has increased noticeably within the last two to three years. At the marina, where a licensed property is adjacent, weekend boater activity has reached an unprecedented level, whereby impaired drivers are more the rule than the exception.

“These boats and boaters arrive and depart at all hours of the late night and morning, harassing transient and local boaters who, on some occasions, have had to leave the marina. Our reputation has deteriorated considerably. This coming and going drinking activity seems to be commonplace, knowing full well that a physical deterrent presence of authority via the OPP is not there in any location along our

section of the North Channel, North shore.

“In recent discussions with conservation officers from the MNR, they can verify that drinking and boating is commonplace, in this waterway at least, and I respectfully suggest that this is entirely due to the disappearance of what once was the best deterrent to drinking and driving, an OPP boat and officers on a regular, consistent patrol with a well-equipped vessel.”

He goes on to say that he has yet to see an OPP boat anywhere around his location for two years at least, excepting a late-season visit for vessel viewing; in other words, a public relations visit by the OPP.

I am most concerned about this, and I have had contact with the Solicitor General about the amount of enforcement. I recognize, as my colleague from the government side of the House said, that a committee is looking at this matter and reviewing it. But I might say in passing that I had to tell the new Solicitor General about this committee. I knew about it; he did not. So I really wonder about what input he has to it.

I wrote to the Solicitor General on 29 August about this problem, and I have yet to receive a response, even though I have reminded the minister on many occasions that he needs to respond.

The question I am most concerned about is that there is no longer a large vessel in the Sault Ste Marie OPP detachment. The 37-foot boat that was based in the Sault was transferred recently to Parry Sound, where I do not debate that it was needed. Apparently a slightly smaller boat was supposed to be transferred from Parry Sound to the Sault detachment to replace it; but it was found to be in such need of repair and the financial constraints were such that the OPP could not afford to do the required repairs to make it seaworthy, to enable it to be transferred.

Now we have a situation where the Sault Ste Marie detachment is located on the largest fresh body of water in the world and we do not have a large police boat to police that body of water or any of the inland lakes. Lake Superior is not protected. The OPP are quite straight when they say they do not have a vessel that it is safe to go out on Lake Superior with. If that is the case, how on earth is the OPP supposed to police boating on Lake Superior?

I suspect that the situation is not much better on any of the other Great Lakes or the inland lakes. It is so unusual to see a police boat in our area -- there is one, a small one, for inland lakes --

Mr Miller: What about the feds? Don’t they have one stationed there?

Mr Wildman: I will get to that in a moment.

Mr Miller: All right.

Mr Epp: Let’s get to it quickly.

Mr Wildman: Certainly the federal government has some jurisdictional responsibility. I recognize that the OPP does work co-operatively with the RCMP as well as with local police forces, and that the Canadian Coast Guard has some responsibility, but the fact is that the coast guard is not and never was equipped to carry out everyday policing of pleasure boating.

The coast guard’s main role has been to deal with the Seaway traffic and with the need for search and rescue when there has been a serious disaster. But even the Canadian Coast Guard does not have the equipment to go out on Lake Superior. We in our area are completely dependent on the US Coast Guard. As a matter of fact, the US Coast Guard has to come over to the Canadian side any time there is a major search on Lake Superior.

We very much appreciate the fact that the US Coast Guard is willing to do this, but really are we meeting our responsibilities? As a matter of fact, the US and Canadian coast guards are more responsible for trying to deal with illicit drug traffic by water across the lakes than they are with everyday policing in co-operation with the RCMP and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about boater safety. We are talking about small craft and larger pleasure craft that are using our waterways in great numbers. The OPP, which is responsible for policing and ensuring that we do not have impaired drivers, does not have the equipment or the staff to do the job.

If we are talking about people over the age of 16 who have automobile licences, it might be argued that if they are found to be impaired and operating a boat, they are indeed subject to charge and could lose their driver’s licence.

But what does that do about those people who are not impaired but who are inexperienced and do not know what they are doing and end up in accidents and overturn their boats because they are involved in traffic that is so heavy, without any rules or understanding the regulations, and there is no physical presence of the OPP to try to direct traffic and ensure that we have safe boating?

This government, if it believes in safe boating, will make a commitment to equipment and staff so we can have proper enforcement. I commend to the House the bill introduced by my colleague.

Mr McCague: I am pleased to speak in support of this bill. While it may have been parroted from the member for Simcoe East, it is a bill of significant importance, and it looks as if it is going to take the combined efforts of the opposition parties to persuade the government that something should be done.

The member for Norfolk (Mr Miller) stood up on behalf of the government and told us all the beautiful things about the lakes and rivers in the province and what a good idea this was, but then he took the normal civil service attitude and came back with all the reasons why we could not do it.

He also mentioned that it was a great thing to talk about these things in here. I did not come here to have a chat with the member this morning about the matter; I wanted him to take some action. If he could persuade the civil servants that he knows what is right and that it can be done, why does he not get on with it? That is what we are talking about.

I know that perhaps some combination of driver’s licence and boater’s licence has been referred to. If you have a driver’s licence, you should start there and let such a person drive a boat. If you do not have a driver’s licence, you have to get a boat licence. There are all kinds of combinations.

The member knows if he looks for ways to do it he can do it, but if he looks for ways not to do it, he can get the civil service to tell him all kinds of those things and he can parrot them here in the House. That is no good to us at all. Let’s get on with it.

I speak on behalf of the member for Simcoe East, who is unavoidably not here today. Actually he is boating. He is travelling between Moosonee and Moose Factory looking for deer. I hope he is successful.

I think this is one example to the member for Norfolk of something that this House could really do. Why does he not refer it to committee? Why does he not get on with it so we can have a safer boating season in 1990?

Mr Epp: I am pleased to participate in this bill put forward by the member for Oshawa, Bill 73, and I am also pleased to say that I am going to support this bill, for a number of reasons.

I am cognizant of the views of some of my colleagues on this matter, and I respect their views on it. I think they have very good reason for saying what they do. I think there is another aspect to this, though.

The accidents in this province are very high as far as boating is concerned. In the last eight years there have been approximately 695 fatalities on the lakes and rivers in this province. In 1980 there were about 123 killed, while in 1987 there were 64, an average of 87 in the last eight years. Most of those are fatalities of males between the ages of 15 and 34. A lot of them are caused by alcohol and the absence of life-saving devices.

These matters obviously should be enforced if possible, and I think our enforcement agency is trying to do the best it can with regard to alcohol and life-saving devices. In addition to that, people need to be of a mature age and not have a lot of minors driving high-powered boats. I think that is what this bill is trying to address.

I am also cognizant of the jurisdictional disputes or jurisdictional problems associated with this bill. I am aware of the fact that maybe this should be federal, but I do not think we can always wait for the feds to do something. I think there are plenty of examples where we have waited for them and nothing has happened. Nothing has happened in the last 100 years. Why would we expect them to do something in the next 100 years?

I am also aware that the waters we have bound on three provinces, on the United States as well as our own, and, as my colleague has mentioned, six different states.

The Toronto Star not very long ago, about a month and a half ago, summed up part of this and said, “Powerboats, originally driven by steam, have been in existence longer than automobiles, yet boat drivers in both Canadian and American waters in this area still don’t need licences.” It went on to say, “Licensing won’t automatically provide all that’s needed to update the forgotten side of enforcing safety.

But as happens with highway drivers, boat drivers would be required to meet certain standards of age, physical condition, and skills before the license is issued.” I concur with that, and I think that one step is better than none. We cannot do everything at the beginning. What we have to do is start with something, and that is what this bill addresses.

The need for licensing and greater enforcement was driven home this summer to me very forcibly when I was away at a conference with some of my colleagues. When I returned, I learned of the son of a friend of mine, who was on the water with one of the ski jets, fell off and a big motorboat went over him and he died shortly thereafter. That was because, as I understand it, these high-powered boats have their nose way up in the air, and they could not see him at all.

I am not sure licensing would have prevented that matter, and I am not sure who was driving the boat or whether there are some controls that could be placed on them. But at least if we had some licensing, we would be able to have control of people who are very young now and permitted to go out with powerboats and others who are not properly trained. I think education is an important aspect of this, and I think that should be worked on.

In

summary, I would like to say that I am pleased to support the member for Oshawa in his bid to get some control in this matter.

Mr Breaugh: Mr Speaker, if I could, I would like to use the remainder of the time allocation for my caucus and the two minutes --

The Speaker: And the two minutes as well?

Mr Breaugh: Yes, to kind of add it all together.

I thank the members for their contributions this morning. It is precisely what I wanted. I am content this morning to have the debate on this bill in principle. That is a good start for us. I do think it is the kind of thing that would be worth the government’s time to think about taking an idea like this and sending it to one of our standing committees or perhaps striking a select committee, because as the member for Norfolk suggested, this is a beginning. There are a number of other things that should be considered when you are going through all of this.

I do not view this bill to be a panacea -- it certainly is not that -- but it is a beginning, a first step, and I think a necessary first step.

I want to address some of the other concerns that were brought forward this morning, because I think they are extremely valid.

Enforcement of whatever laws might exist now is becoming a problem. This summer I was pleased to see an RCMP boat pull up alongside mine, because I knew why they were there. They were there in the first instance to establish a profile that there is some policing -- albeit not as much as necessary, but there is some. And they want to remind people about boating safety and that you have to have safety equipment on board. As somebody who has invested a lot of money in safety equipment, it is all equipment that I never want to use.

I never want to have a disaster on board my boat, nor would I wish that on anyone else. But I want the equipment there. It was one of those happy occasions when you are glad to see a police officer; you get a chance to show him that you conform with all the laws, and a bit more, and that you have on board your boat all the things you should have. But that was one occasion during the course of the summer.

We do need to think about enforcement. That is going to be a problem, but it is a problem that is not going to go away. The government of Ontario, whether it wants to hide behind jurisdictional matters or anything else, is going to have to play a role in that. It is going to have to sort it out.

For example, I keep my boat in a very nice little marina at the port of Newcastle. One thing that strikes you is that there are all kinds of people in there with their craft, and there are all kinds of craft. We have one guy who has a very fine old wooden schooner that he has completely restored himself; so it is not a very expensive hobby for him. I have never seen him take his craft out. He likes to be around the marina; he likes to polish, to sand and to restore. That is his enjoyment. It does not cost him a great deal of money, but it costs him a lot of elbow grease. He enjoys that.

There are others who go there and use the marina as some would use a summer cottage. There are others who are avid boaters, and they are out on the lake every time they get the opportunity. It can be a great many different things to a great many people; people get all sorts of enjoyment from it.

About as quickly as you could write a law, somebody will invent some new method of transportation on the waterways. Some people who are avid sailors never want to turn the motor on at all; they sail because they enjoy it. They are not in a hurry to go anywhere. They are proud of their sailing skills and proud of their boats. They like that; that is what they do. Others are obsessed with the notion of speed. Some have large craft that will go very quickly across the water; others have very small craft that will do the same thing. It is difficult to keep on top of all the new developments.

There is a huge boating industry in Canada now, and it is one that I think should be fostered and supported, but it also needs a little help. None of us who are involved in the boating industry directly or participants in boating is happy with the notion that our laws are confusing, to say the least, about the consumption of alcoholic beverages on board a boat. They remain confusing to this day. They are a little clearer now than they were a couple of years ago, but it is a perplexing problem because the public has this problem in mind. They are not sure that operating a boat is the same as operating a car. I think we have a great deal of educating to do in that field.

It is probably true to say that there is nothing wrong with somebody in the middle of Lake Ontario having a beer on a hot, summer day. The problem is that you cannot really write a law like that. That is difficult to enforce and difficult to understand. I believe that in all the legislation that governs the use of the oldest highways we have, the waterways, we have to begin to look at that in a slightly different way.

It is useful to begin by looking at a licensing provision for the operation of the vessel. To fly an airplane you need a licence, and we all acknowledge and support that; to ride a motor-cycle on our highways you need a licence, and we all acknowledge and support that; and to drive a truck on our roads you need a licence, and we all understand that. But it seems to me completely nonsensical that to operate a boat on perhaps a very busy waterway, you do not need a licence. That makes no sense to me at all.

Whether or not the members agree with this bill’s mechanics, which I would like to set aside for a moment, I think we all accept the principle that the day when you will need a licence to operate a boat is near at hand. This government and governments across Canada have to turn their minds to that. I would like to see a committee of the assembly, for example, take that on, whether it is this bill or the broader question. I know there are interministerial committees considering the matter, but I believe the problem is now before us in a shape and form that we cannot deny.

I hope that the members will support this bill. I thank them for their participation.

The Speaker: The member still has two minutes. He does not wish to use them? That presents a very small problem. However, I think we can overcome it. The standing order does say we should call a vote at 12 o’clock. It is awfully close, is it not?

CANADIAN FORCES BASE

The Speaker: Mr Reycraft has moved resolution 30.

Motion agreed to.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The Speaker: Mr Breaugh has moved second reading of Bill 73.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House recessed at 1200.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Laughren: In July in this assembly I raised a matter of one insurance company simply creating a new entity and shifting a policy from one entity to another in order to avoid the ceiling on insurance rates. In August I wrote a letter to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston). I wrote another letter in September. I raised it in the Legislature in October. My colleague, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos), raised it here again yesterday in the month of November.

So in July, August, September, October and November we have been raising the problem of insurance companies avoiding the cap on insurance rates simply by shifting, within the same corporate umbrella, policyholders from one entity to another.

To this day, going right back to July, the minister has not had the courtesy or the integrity to respond to either my letters or the statements in this assembly. I know that there is no standing order that says the minister has to respond to members’ concerns that are raised in this assembly, but I can tell the House that he stands condemned. I can only assume he has no answers and condones this kind of deception that is going on out there in the insurance industry. He has created an unbelievable mess in the automobile insurance industry, and it rests entirely on his head.

ZEBRA MUSSELS

Mr Pollock: This morning the Minister of Natural Resources (Mrs McLeod) met with the mayor of Belleville, a representative from the city of Trenton, the warden of Hastings county, Terry Quinney from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Inc, other members of this Legislature, staff and myself. I called this meeting to talk about the zebra mussel problem now plaguing Lake St Clair and Lake Erie and to discuss with all involved what, if anything, could be done.

The prediction is that the zebra mussels will be in Lake Ontario by 1990. These mussels could spread through the inland lakes and waterways, which could seriously affect our fish spawning areas. According to the European experience, man transports these mussels on the sides of his boats; also, their larvae stay on the sides of the boats.

At the meeting this morning we had a good, open discussion. I appreciate the minister taking time out of her busy

schedule to join with us and having a knowledgeable member of her staff present. Our waterways and lakes are extremely important, and we should investigate every avenue to protect them. Time is not on our side.

NORTHERN TELECOM LTD

Mr Callahan: I rise on this occasion to congratulate Northern Telecom Ltd, which is the employer of a large number of people in my community. My colleague the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms Hart) and myself had the extreme pleasure of attending at Northern Telecom on Tuesday to celebrate with its officials the receipt of a most prestigious award. They received one of the highest international awards for quality, and since Northern Telecom is on the cutting edge of technology, it is certainly a significant industry that is well ahead of many in the world. It sits as a diamond, perhaps, within the framework of this province and this country.

I would like to take this opportunity to bring that to the public’s attention, to congratulate all the people who were involved in achieving that prestigious award and to wish them well in the future.

LOTTERY PROFITS

Mr Hampton: Once again, this government is showing a lack of concern for the special needs of this province’s northern communities. Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, represents a perfect example of what I am speaking about.

As I am sure my colleagues are aware, Bill 119 has included hospitals as a second recipient of Ontario’s lottery profits. By doing so, this government has allowed a ministry which already receives one third of the provincial budget to gain even more. Albeit we do not approve of the way this money will come to the ministry, we think there are other ways this ministry should be funded.

I have particularly strong feelings on this issue because it shows the insensitivity to the unique nature of northern Ontario communities. More so than in southern Ontario, local cultural and recreational centres have become the focal points around which residents of the north revolve. Libraries, museums and recreational clubs play a tremendous role in northern Ontario communities. In addition to education or fitness, these institutions provide a source of pride and have become social centres which bind the community together.

To decrease the cultural and recreational programs available to those in northern Ontario will surely be a detriment to our society. As northern Ontario communities have no other channels open in gathering funds, many of the clubs and organizations that represent the heart of northern society will close.

ARTISTS’ WORK

Mr Eves: It is my pleasure and honour this afternoon to introduce to the Legislature some very important members of my constituency. We have artists here today: Clermont Duval, David Barrer and a representative of the Mattawa Arts Council, Judy Duval, who are present today displaying their works in my office, where they have been displayed for the last several months. I know that several members of the Legislature, including the member for Sudbury (Mr Campbell) and others, have expressed interest in this very impressive display of art over the last several months, and they are here today to replace their works of art.

I would like to take credit for this idea as being my own, but I must admit that the member for Renfrew North, the Minister of Education (Mr Conway), gave me the idea. I think it is a great idea that other members of the Legislature should follow. It is a great opportunity for having some very competent and extremely worthwhile pieces of art and Canadian artists represented here in the Ontario Legislature.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Owen: In the ongoing constitutional debate about Meech Lake, the participation of Quebec in the full life of Canada remains paramount. Where we are today reflects from where we came. Today in this Legislature we are mindful of the sacrifices of the two world wars and the Korean War. Our country’s history books record the bitterness of conscription debates in the two world wars. However, I would ask us not to forget the valour and sacrifice of many from Quebec who did fight in these three wars.

On 8 August 1918, Lieutenant Jean Brillant of the 22nd Canadian infantry battalion at the battle of Amiens personally rushed and captured an enemy machine gun nest. Although wounded, Lieutenant Brillant led another rush, capturing 150 enemy and 15 machine guns, but was wounded a second time. The next day he led yet another rushing party against a field gun, when he was wounded a third time, this time fatally. Lieutenant Brillant was awarded the Victoria Cross.

On 14 August 1943, Captain Paul Triquet led an assault on Casa Berardi in Italy. All of the company officers and half of the men were killed or wounded. He successfully withstood counterattack by huge odds, with only two sergeants and 15 men at his side. Lieutenant Triquet was awarded the Victoria Cross.

The 22nd regiment has a distinguished record in war, and their many acts of heroism are legend. When the Korean War ended in 1953, nearly 27,000 Canadians had participated; 1,500 of our countrymen died. A list of those killed in that war records large numbers from Quebec. Many medals were awarded to them.

At this time, let us recall with gratitude the valour, achievements, the sacrifice of men and women from each and every part of this country.

ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS

Mr R. F. Johnston: Over the last number of years, the advocacy workers in the adult protective services workers program, workers with the developmentally retarded and the developmentally handicapped in the province, have seen their program systematically destroyed by this government trying to take away their advocacy role and turn them into merely case managers for their clients.

The most recent happening, though, is of extreme disturbance to me, and that is the recognition of the value of those people. The fact that in terms of pay equity they were not being paid the appropriate amounts of money, has been recognized by several regions in the province, most recently the region of Durham. For a cost of an extra $46,000, these workers would receive appropriate payment.

This government is refusing to pass through those dollars, this government which is supposedly in favour of pay equity, this government which supposedly knows that social service workers are often undervalued and has set aside a fund to raise their incomes is jeopardizing the existence of that entire program in the region of Durham. I think the people of the province of Ontario need to know that.

There has been a lot of talk about developing an Advocacy Ontario kind of bureau, and all this government has done is drag its feet and, at the same time, destroy one of the programs which has been most successful in this area.

MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

Mr McCague: My riding of Simcoe West borders on the south side of what is now known as the GTA -- the greater taxation area. Many of the people in my riding have an address which is the same as many of those on the south side of Highway 9, and therefore they are all receiving notices to pay the $90.

In conversation with the minister’s office this morning, we were told that the onus is on the person who happens to live on the north side of Highway 9 to point out the discrepancy and that the government has no intention of doing any advertising or phone calls or whatever to bring this fact to our attention. So, if you happen to be a good law-abiding citizen and you get a notice for $90, you go in and pay it.

Surely, the minister will see that these people who were incorrectly addressed receive notification that such is the case, or in the alternative, surely, they can be refunded the money that they have overpaid. The minister has not been here for a day or so, but I am sure he will look into this first thing tomorrow morning.

OTONABEE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr Adams: Thirty years of conservation: a remarkable record which the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority based in Peterborough celebrates this year.

In 1959, ORCA was formed by the province at the request of the local municipalities. The watershed boundary was originally defined by the watershed of the Otonabee River. In 1960, the Indian River watershed was added and in 1961, the boundary was further enlarged to include the Ouse River watershed. Emily and Ennismore townships joined the authority in 1969 and 1989, respectively. The watershed region now encompasses an area of 1,890 square kilometres through 15 municipalities and three river basins.

Since its establishment, ORCA has developed a comprehensive resources management program. The resource management of the authority clearly reflects its mandate which empowered the authority to undertake programs to further conservation restoration development and management of natural resources other than coal, oil, gas and minerals.

The authority has acquired over 10,000 acres of land for conservation purposes. The properties were purchased for a variety of uses, including water supply and control, fish and wildlife habitat protection, environmental sensitivity, fibre production, outdoor recreation and conservation education -- 30 fine years.

Hon Mr Ward: By prior agreement, I seek unanimous consent to hear statements on Polish Independence Day and Remembrance Day.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

POLISH INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Ruprecht: November 11 is a very special date and of significance to our citizens of Polish heritage as they celebrate the 71st anniversary of Poland’s independence. In 1918, over 100 years of occupation and subjugation ended, and Poland gained independence as a modern nation-state. Since then, the independence of Poland has been challenged on a number of occasions.

Today, I am very proud to introduce to you some Canadians who are with us today and who were ready to die for a free and independent Poland: Stan Sadowki, president of the Canadian Polish Congress, Toronto district; Stefan Falkowski, president of the Polish Army Veterans Association, and Mr Szczyglowski, president of the Polish Combatants Association.

This year, the anniversary is of special significance because of the presence of Lech Walesa, the chairman of the first independent trade union in eastern Europe. I met Mr Walesa in Poland just before martial law was imposed on 13 December 1981. At that time, there was a dark cloud over Poland and there had been reports of imminent Russian invasion forces coming into Poland. Mr Walesa, at that time, had a significant role to play in taking the nation from the brink of war. I can remember what he told me. He said: “I will be jailed in a few days, but I will not go into exile. I would rather stay with my people even if it means death.”

Our meeting was interrupted by two men who came in to hang a cross over Mr Walesa’s chair, and at that point it struck me that this particular cross was pretty large. But when they had left, Mr Walesa turned to me. He pointed to the cross and he said, “This, Mr Ruprecht, is our strength and this is what we believe in.”

Of course, this was a great, courageous act of Mr Walesa, as all of us know and as all of us followed the history of Poland. As the iron curtain is now lifting and a massive transformation is taking place which is really unprecedented in eastern Europe, especially in Poland, what will the scribes of history say about us and our participation, our contribution and our involvement? Will they say, “‘There was a nation and there was a people who participated, helped and put their shoulders to the wheel of helping out a reconstructed Europe”? Or will they say, “There is a nation called Canada, which did really nothing, or only very little”?

The choice today, of course, is ours, and I would hope we would not sit idly by while those nations of eastern Europe are going through some pretty cataclysmic changes. November 11 will be celebrated with a mass at 11 am in St Stanislaus church. It will be followed by a flag-raising ceremony at city hall and a historic meeting with Lech Walesa at Massey Hall. I would encourage all members to participate.

Finally, let me just turn and say to all our Polish-Canadian friends who will celebrate 11 November as Polish Independence Day:

[Remarks in Polish].

Mr B. Rae: As the member for Parkdale has pointed out -- and how delighted we are to have his support for the existence of the trade union movement anywhere in the world -- this is going to mark a historic weekend, not only that it represents Polish Independence Day, which we have celebrated on other occasions in this House, but it is also a weekend in which Lech Walesa is going to be the guest of the Canadian Labour Congress and the Ontario Federation of Labour in this province, and is also going to be visiting the United States.

We are simply delighted that he is coming here and so proud of the events and the tremendous leadership which the trade union movement in Poland has shown to the entire country. I know there are many members opposite who will be joining with all of us in these celebrations this weekend here and in the great city of Hamilton, where there will be a celebration at the Vic Copps arena.

I want to say a word to members, and I am sure they would allow me to do so, about some of the extraordinary events taking place in eastern Europe. I just heard on the news prior to question period that the East German government has announced that any East German citizen who wants to leave the country will be allowed to do so. They will be allowed to leave through the wall, if that is how they choose to leave.

I am sure I speak for all the members of the House when we simply celebrate this incredible transformation of eastern Europe that has taken place. We celebrate with all those who have been martyrs to the cause for so long, those who have been in jail, those who have been killed, those whose families have not been allowed to pray, those whose families have not been allowed to speak out, those whose families have not been allowed to hold different opinions and to speak aloud their contempt for the incredible oppression which they and their families have had to live in for a generation.

We celebrate with the Polish people their freedom, but we have to do more than that. We have to, as a Legislature and I believe as a country, reach out in practical ways and in real ways as eastern Europe undergoes this incredible transformation.

The news from Poland is extremely tough. In creating a different kind of economy and a different kind of society overnight, to say it is difficult is to understate the case. There are shortages of the most basic of commodities. There are real problems with employment, with jobs. There is incredible inflation and, of course, the social structure itself is threatened as an old order has died and a new order has yet to really take its place.

We in this party celebrate the triumph of democracy anywhere in the world. We certainly celebrate, in a very special way, the triumph of social democracy in its best sense in the countries of eastern Europe. We are especially proud on this weekend as we await the arrival of Lech Walesa, one of the really true heroes of our generation.

Mr Jackson: I wish to rise and acknowledge, as well, Poland’s day of national independence. The history of Poland and the Polish people in the past 1,000 years is one of continuous struggle against oppression and foreign domination. They are a very proud people who have been deeply imbued with a sense of national purpose and a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for their freedom and in defence of their homeland, even though this has meant severe reprisals and the loss of life.

In the 18th century, Poland was finally occupied and divided as a nation under a then very repressive regime. However, the spirit of Jan Sobieski and Adam Mitskevich lived on in the hearts and minds of the Polish people, reminding them of the bravery and the tenacity of their ancestors.

In 1918, Poland rose once again as a free and united nation after the aftermath of that crumbling regime, so November 11 marks the day on which Poles around the world remember and relive the events that led up to that very first independence day.

Polish Independence Day is more than just an expression of national pride in what went on in the past; it has taken on a very special meaning for all Poles and indeed for all eastern European peoples as they look in 1989 for renewed hope of nationhood, of freedom and of economic prosperity as they witness yet another oppressive regime crumbling.

This year, our Polish-Canadian community will be able to celebrate independence day with Lech Walesa, whose patriotic Solidarity party has in fact become the voice and the government of the Polish people.

I, like a number of my colleagues in the House and like many other Canadians who have their roots in eastern European culture, have been fortunate not to have to experience the kind of terror our ancestors experienced. Nevertheless, we grew up with an understanding of its meaning as we saw it in the eyes of our parents and our grandparents.

It is time for us and for new Canadians to share a sense of appreciation for this country and for what it has given our people so that we never have to live with that loss of prosperity and with the thought of living in terror.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I wish to extend to members of the Polish-Canadian community and through them to all Polish people worldwide our hearty congratulations on the occasion of their independence day celebration.

[Remarks in Polish]

REMEMBRANCE DAY

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

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

For many people in this province and in this country, war is something remote, other than the occasional viewing of special programs of remembrance of Vimy, Dieppe, D-Day, etc. We have throughout our province and, yes, within the Ontario public service those men and women who served with distinction and were decorated. There are also those who know only too well the horrors of it all through confinement in prisoner-of-war or concentration camps.

At the close of the Second World War, a well-known army general, in urging the twinning of sister city communities throughout the world, said, “We have learned to win the war, but we have never learned to win the peace.”

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

“They shall not grow old, as we who are left grow old:

“Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

“At the going down of the sun and in the morning

“We will remember them.”

Mr Mackenzie: As spokesman for the official opposition, I too wish to pay tribute to those whose memory we shall be honouring this Saturday. On each Remembrance Day we attempt to find words that will give meaning to the supreme sacrifice made by Canadians in defence of our freedom; indeed, “Lest We Forget” has come to symbolize our thanksgiving for what we enjoy today.

Let me share with members a prayer that was found among the effects of a Canadian infantry sergeant who perished outside Ortona, Italy, in December of 1943. It reads:

“Today, a bird sang for me. Today, I leaned against the strong trunk of a living tree, so I am not alone. When I get back to Canada, I will remember this. I will cherish all life, for all life is really one. I will never again be a destroyer. This is my dream; that we will learn to live in harmony, not between men alone, but with the whole living world.”

This to me is what Remembrance Day is all about. It is about a dream, a dream of harmony. It is not about the glorification of war, for that would be the glorification of a terrible waste where lives are lost in the horror and ferocity of war. Rather it is about the glorification of those 110,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and women who served together and died for the ultimate goal, the goal of preserving our democracy and our country.

In these days, when many Canadians are concerned about the unity of our country, it is well to remind ourselves of the words of Joseph Howe in the early days of our nation. “Let a wise nation preserve its monuments, decorate the graves of its illustrious dead, repair its great structures and foster national pride by perpetual allusion to the glories and sacrifices of the past.”

It is these perpetual allusions to the glories and sacrifices of the past that culminate each year in our celebration of Remembrance Day. Our legions, schoolchildren, community organizations and citizens are thereby saying to the world we shall not forget, and it is this phrase which imparts on all of us the direction for our future.

Never again must man’s inhumanity to man allow the terrible waste of war which in future would even put at risk our very planet. It is this challenge that Remembrance Day embodies and that future generations in this country must continue to meet.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I am honoured to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and pay tribute once more to the Royal Canadian Legion and express our support to all the veterans of our great land as together we listen to the mournful sound of the bugle as it is blown at the 11th hour of this Saturday, Remembrance Day.

The First World War came to an end at 11 am on November 11, 1918. This date is known as Armistice Day. In Canada, November 11 marks a solemn commemoration of over 100,000 Canadians who made the supreme sacrifice in the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War. In addition, tribute is paid to those who served in the Canadian Armed Forces and especially the many veterans who still bear the mental and physical scars of those wars.

Remembrance Day provides an opportunity for Canadians to reflect on the horrors of war. The hardship, destruction and tragedy of armed conflict should be brought home to our younger generations.

If we are to avoid going down the road of war again, it is vital that we realize that in this era it is impossible to win a war. It is just as important to recall the principles upon which Canada fought so many years ago. Canada has always stood for freedom, democracy and self-determination. There can be no doubt the Canadians who fought did so to uphold these very principles. They believed that these principles were worth fighting for. The valuable lessons they teach us must never be forgotten.

This year, 1989, not only marks the 50th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War, a conflict in which 50 million people perished, but it also is the year that has seen massive shifts in the political structure of our world. For the first time in over 40 years, there seems to be a genuine thaw in the cold war with our adversaries in the eastern bloc. Hopefully, 1989 will go down in history as the year that truly brought an end to the threat of world war. For the sake of our young people and our future generations, I truly hope it will be so. It is the remembrance of the terrors of war that compels us to search for a lasting