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

June 18, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L030 - Thu 18 Jun 1987 / Jeu 18 jun 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RIGHT TO FARM

COTTAGE LOT DEVELOPMENT

RIGHT TO FARM

COTTAGE LOT DEVELOPMENT

AFTERNOON SITTING

VISITOR

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORLD YOUTH WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS

PIT BULL TERRIERS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

TENANTS HOT LINE

VISITORS

GAME AND FISH ACT

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

DISASTER RELIEF

RESPONSES

DISASTER RELIEF

RECORD OF DEBATES

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

VISITORS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

ACCORD CONSTITUTIONNEL

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

PARAMEDICS

EXPERIENCE `87

WATER QUALITY

ONTARIO HYDRO PLANNING

ACCORD CONSTITUTIONNEL

FUNERAL SERVICES

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

PETITION

TRANSIT SERVICES

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED WOOD ENERGY TECHNICIANS OF ONTARIO ACT

IRISH IMMIGRANTS' SESQUICENTENNIAL ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RIGHT TO FARM

Mr. McNeil moved resolution 14:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring forward legislation dealing with the purchase or leasing of farm property. Specifically this legislation should make it mandatory that any person or persons purchasing or leasing property in a bona fide agricultural area be informed of the conditions associated with farming and not be in a position to harass or close down a bona fide farming operation.

Mr. McNeil: In introducing this resolution, I would hope to be able to discuss some of the problems that have been developing in our farming communities between farmers and nonfarming, former urbanite residents.

I was raised on a small dairy farm in southwestern Ontario when all the work in my early years was done by horsepower and manpower. At that time, the average-sized farm was 100 acres, where a crop rotation was closely followed and no sprays, chemicals or fertilizers were used. Hard work was the order of the day and everyone in the family worked during the daylight hours.

As we realize, agriculture has experienced many changes since those days. Farming units have become much larger, with the result that many former farm homes have been severed and sold to nonfarmers.

In addition to this trend, many farmers decided over the years to retire on their farms, with the result that another home was built and the farm was often operated as a father-son combination in partnership. This system worked extremely well for the first generation, but when farmers became more mechanized and the original owner passed away, another home became surplus property and, naturally, would be placed on the market. If this home was sold to an urbanite who wanted to leave the noises and smells associated with the city, sometimes problems could develop when the new owner did not recognize or understand a farming operation.

It would appear that some type of registry should be developed whereby information is available to future purchasers that outlines the type of farming that exists in the area. This registry could be located in the municipal office of the municipality and should also be available to the local land registry office.

I do not think we can expect real estate agents to publicize the fact that a beautiful country home which is on the market is located next to a large livestock farming operation. Yet, in all fairness, the purchaser of that beautiful home should be made aware of the conditions that exist in the area.

As I mentioned earlier, agriculture has experienced many changes since my days on that small dairy farm in southwestern Ontario. These changes will continue and no doubt farms will become larger and more specialized. Farming today, as we recognize it, is big business and represents a large capital investment in land, buildings, machinery and crops. Farmers today are specialists in various fields with the result that units are larger and much more mechanized.

Prior to the Second World War, a 100-acre farm would employ at least two people on a full-time basis in addition to the growing family who were also expected to help with the farm chores. Today it is nothing unusual for two people to efficiently work several hundred acres of land.

Let me quote a personal example on our farm to substantiate this statement. We have our corn harvested by a neighbour. Last fall, this custom operator pulled into the 75-acre field at 4:30 in the afternoon and by two o'clock the following morning the harvest of that 75 acres was completed. In the 1950s, we used to average five acres a day with a one-row corn picker drawn by a tractor. In other words, what was accomplished in less than 10 hours would have taken more than 15 days just 30-odd years ago.

If a former urban dweller had lived next to that corn field, that person or persons might not have appreciated the noise and activity that was taking place in that field on a very quiet October evening.

Farming today is not the peaceful, pastoral scene sometimes depicted by artists, showing a herd of animals chewing their cuds under a clump of beautiful maple trees, beside a lovely, clear stream where a young farm lad is trying his luck with a fishing pole. These scenes do not exist in our part of the province any more. Since agriculture is facing more economic challenges, farmers are forced to work long hours during seeding and harvest.

Imagine the reaction of a family which has recently purchased or leased a lovely home in the country. At five o'clock on an April morning, they are suddenly awakened by the sound of a diesel tractor which is operating in a field next to their property. They were not prepared for this. Later that day, with the windows and doors of that home open for fresh air, a very strong, peculiar odour enters this home. On investigation, this new rural dweller learns that liquid manure is being applied to the field next door.

The understandable reaction would be one of surprise and wondering the reason for not being informed of this operation when being sold the property. It could result in the Ministry of the Environment being contacted and charges laid against the neighbour, who is only carrying out his normal farming operations.

Members may say this is impossible, but I can assure them that recently I had a constituent who was spreading liquid manure on a field in his farm with an irrigation system. One of the distributors ceased working for only a short time before being noticed and repaired, and he has since been charged with polluting a drain. Previous to being charged, he was told by an official of the Ministry of the Environment that liquid manure should not be allowed to be spread on fields.

How is a farmer going to dispose of the animal waste, which also has value as a fertilizer, if it cannot be spread on agricultural land? Farmers are fearful of courts and lawyers. Most farmers are law-abiding, hardworking, honest citizens, and to be charged and appear in a court is a very difficult experience for them.

If former urban dwellers were made aware of some of the conditions that exist in a farming community for only short periods of time, I feel the problems such as some of the ones that are developing would not happen. These people should know about the noise, the dust, the odour and smell and the long hours of work associated with different periods in the operation of a successful farm.

I recognize that we do have a code of ethics and that it is impossible to obtain a building permit for buildings housing livestock or poultry unless the building is located more than 1,000 feet from houses and dwellings. I live on a farm that is designated as restricted agriculture, which I understand means that in case of a fire or in case of the buildings being destroyed, I could replace the present farm buildings but would not be able to expand on the same site since the outbuildings are located too close to the residents in a nearby hamlet.

I support this type of restriction, and I want to emphasize that I am not opposed to urban people moving to farming communities. I feel there are areas in this province where severances can be made on nonproductive, nonworkable farm land, but those who purchase these severances should be informed of the type of agricultural operations that exist in that farming area.

Most farmers must use chemicals in controlling weeds and parasites in field and fruit crops. These sprays must be used with caution and I commend the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for the work it has done over the years in advising farmers in the proper use of chemicals. Just imagine the result in our fruit-growing areas in this province if chemicals were banned and our fruit would no longer be available because of insect infestation. I know this will not happen, but some strange things have happened in the agricultural picture in the last few years.

A few years ago a farmer received a warning and almost had his drying operation shut down because of noise created by that corn dryer when it was operating at night. I think we all recognize the fact that when farmers are spending long hours in the harvest fields, it is necessary to operate dryers during the night in order to have an efficient operation.

I have always felt that most people are reasonable and responsible. I feel that our new neighbours, if they understood the problems associated with agricultural production when purchasing or leasing properties in farming areas, would have a much better understanding and would not create any problems associated with that farming operation.

As a farmer, I also recognize that farmers have to assume a great deal of responsibility. We cannot, we should not and we must not recklessly use chemicals or dispose of animal byproducts.

Co-operation between farmers and nonfarmers can make for a happy environment and this in turn will create a good-neighbour policy which is always needed in all communities, particularly a rural community. I would ask for the support of the honourable members of this Legislature in adopting this resolution. I will reserve a couple of minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: The member wishes to reserve two minutes?

Mr. McNeil: Yes, for reply.

Mr. Hayes: I rise in favour of this resolution. I think a lot of the problems we have had over the years in the agricultural area are the number of severances that have been given in the various municipalities across this province without a lot of concern over the effects they would have on the farmer and even on the person moving into the farming area.

I know the member has mentioned the real estate agents, but I think there should be a great obligation put on real estate companies when they are in the process of selling a piece of property in a rural area or in a farming community. I think there are many times that people will go from the city, look at a house or a lot out in the farming area and think it is just lovely, the air is just beautiful and clean. What the real estate agent or anyone else does not tell those people is that next year that farmer might be spreading some manure on that land. Then, all of a sudden, people are going to complain about that because it is not a very nice smell to some people.

I think these things have to be looked at very seriously, and I do believe there is an obligation on the real estate people, the municipalities and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to set some good, strong guidelines and to make sure that people, before they move into a rural area, are well informed as to what type of operations could take place in that particular community.

When we talk about the severances, we find that there is a lot of demand for services in the rural area. A lot of times, the people who live in the residential area end up outnumbering the farmers in the area, and many times they are faced with a demand for services such as sewers and water lines. Even some of the drains they have had for years and have been sufficient to drain agricultural land are all of a sudden not good enough to drain the residential area.

We have to take a look at these particular areas and make sure when we do develop property for housing, or if we allow any kinds of severances, that they are built on land that is not prime agricultural land, with the understanding that it is not the same as living in the city.

I had a case just last week where a woman complained that a farmer's field was growing up in weeds -- really, it was some hay; but there were no noxious weeds in that particular field. I felt sorry for this woman because she was affected with allergies, but at the same time we talked to the farmer, who said, "We are going to cut that and then we are going to bale it." This particular individual did not want it cut and baled because there would be a lot of dust. Had that person known before she moved into the area that this kind of operation was going to happen, we would not have had this type of problem.

I think we have to be realistic about certain things. In this particular area, you could get politicians or anyone else in and get into the middle of a big fight, saying, "Look, you have to do something to accommodate this individual." But it gets back to the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) to put down some good, strong, black-and-white legislation, and to that of the municipalities and, as I mentioned earlier, the real estate boards.

At the same time, we have to use some good common sense when we are talking about splitting up or severing agricultural land.

There is another area which the member did not mention in his resolution. That is, we have to take a look at the other side of the issue, where the farmer, for example, or any other resident is affected by severances given for industrial operations that could have adverse effects on the farming operation. That is another particular area we should be looking at.

We have all kinds of cases -- probably everyone in this House who is in a rural area has heard of them -- where, for example, we have farmers who are getting their crops eaten up by crows, and if they have a noisemaker or they happen to shoot the crows, the neighbours are complaining about the noise nuisance. That is another area.

For example, a number of years ago in the municipality of Maidstone there was a farm that had a slaughterhouse operation on it for many years, and then all of a sudden it had gone out of business. A few years later it ended up becoming a depot for the hog market. In the few years between the slaughter operation going out of business and the new business starting up as a depot, there were a couple of people who built new houses close to that area; they were quite adamant that they should not have that operation because of the smell from the hogs. That fight went on for quite a long time, and it is something that should never have to happen.

Getting back to the other point, I support this resolution, but I think at the same time we are going to have to put down some good, definite rules. A lot of it has to do with the types of severances that are given in the rural area. I am not opposed to a severance, for example, for someone who wants it for his or her children who are going to continue the farm operation or for a retirement lot. Of course, those particular people know what the farm operation is all about. I am also not opposed to good, planned subdivisions or housing in some of the rural areas.

We have to make sure there is not going to be continued conflict between someone on a residential lot and someone on a farm. If we do allow this to happen, before we know it, farmers are not going to be able to run normal farming operations if, in some areas, urban people who have moved into the residential area of a farming community end up outnumbering the farmers. This could cause a really serious concern.

We have to look at the preservation of our agricultural lands and make sure that agriculture can become more viable in Ontario, but by no means either do we want farmers to be able to go the other way and feel that they can go above and beyond and use methods that will also affect the environment. We also want to make sure that we have a good, equal balance there where we can continue to have a good farming industry in this province.

Mr. McGuigan: I rise to compliment the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) for his resolution and to state at the very beginning that we support it.

I just want to report on events that have taken place over the last few months. As members know, the Minister's Right to Farm Advisory Committee was appointed and held hearings throughout the province. In fact, I attended one in St. Thomas. This committee recommended a permit system that would allow or disallow severances. The minister has asked for public comment and is presently looking at these returns.

The government is also looking at US right-to-farm legislation, which varies from state to state, and at legislation in other provinces A draft bill is being prepared, and before it is presented in its final form it will be discussed with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the rural municipalities and possibly other interested groups.

I can report in addition that, like my experience with the Shoreline Management Review Committee, which I chaired last summer, the report of the right to farm advisory committee has raised several legal questions. There are long-entrenched and accepted rules of common law -- in fact, laws that stretch back even to Roman times -- and there is the basic right to enjoy the use of one's property. These rules protect the farmer against trespass; they give him rights about his fencing and his drainage and even rights below the surface.

A lawyer friend of mine tells me that a property owner really owns a cone that proceeds from the boundaries of his property right down to the centre of the earth and extends into the sky for infinity. The farther away, of course, the less the rights become.

Those rights protect farmers. An instance was the case of Bob Walker, whose property was next to the airport property at Chatham. The city of Chatham had misused the money given by the federal government to extend the runway and had extended it right to his fence line. That meant the path of the aircraft started at ground level and rose only one foot for each 100 feet into the man's field. It was about 800 feet into Walker's property before he could actually grow a corn crop, because that pathway belonged to the aircraft. He fought them and eventually won.

I want to put on the record that I supported the farmer, and at the time it was not a very popular position to take, because the people did not understand the law and did not realize that what they were really doing was stealing his land. That was what they were doing; they were stealing his land. It was not very popular. Finally, the federal government had to rush in, and it cost the government $1 million to buy out these rights from the farmer.

Those rights that we speak about protect farmers, but we as farmers also have to recognize that they also protect other property owners. Under the rights and freedoms and the laws we enjoy where we treat people equally, serious questions are raised as to how we accomplish the very legitimate aims presented by the member for Elgin.

I do not want to imply for one second that the government has any less resolve to continue with this right-to-farm legislation than the member has with his resolution; I simply point out there are some difficulties. We ran into those last summer on the shoreline review committee. At every hearing we held, people brought up the particular point that where they protected their property against erosion and the neighbour did not, the erosion would attack the neighbour, come in on the flank of the protected property and in fact even around behind the protected property.

As a committee, we thought it was a very simple thing to use the principle of legislation that is used in the Drainage Act and in the Local Improvement Act, that where two thirds of the people involved -- or in the case of farm land, two thirds of the acreage -- are in favour of going ahead with a project, then the other, declining people could be forced to put in a sidewalk or to put in drainage.

Going back to the fact that it is an unwritten law, the common law, that we all enjoy the right to our property, there was a legal case in Huron county where the property owner who did not protect his shoreline brought a case against those who did protect their shoreline because, he said, "They are causing extra erosion on my land; therefore, I am losing the right to enjoy my property." He won the case. So it is a little more difficult than we had first imagined.

One of the professors from Queen's University who presented a case to us -- I raise this as an example -- said there were 43 acts that affect the shoreline, and they are administered by 11 different bodies. We have a lot of legislation that affects the way we treat nonfarm as well as farm property owners, with the Environmental Assessment Act, as already mentioned, being one of those acts. A canvass is already being done to try to find ways to overcome many of these legal problems. But we do have to stress that the basic law that protects the farmer and keeps trespassers off his farm also gives rights to other people that cannot be ignored.

I like the idea which the member has brought forward that we have a register. It seems to me that would be a means of informing people and a means of alleviating some of the problems. I certainly endorse that.

Not being a lawyer, I cannot touch on what all the legal implications might be, but I think it would be difficult to enforce or to pass legislation that would require a real estate agent to do this, because when you sell a piece of property you are selling it for all time, and for all time there could be many situations that would develop as to the rights of one property owner against the other that could not be foreseen at the time. There would also be the question of whether you could come back on the real estate agent if something developed that was not foreseen or was not lived up to.

Two cases come to mind. When architects sign their drawings, that puts a legal obligation upon them that the building is not going to fall down due to some faulty design. I believe engineers are in the same situation. But you cannot do that unless you have a university education and also an internship that goes beyond your education. I do not think we really want to go to that extreme in putting that kind of obligation upon real estate agents, but I do think it would be a grand idea if we had a register.

Perhaps we could have a code of ethics that would not be legally binding but nevertheless would be a code by which real estate agents operated. Again, we found in the shoreline hearings that people would say, "If I had only known about the flood level, if I had only known about fluctuating lake levels, I might have done things differently."

As the member for Elgin pointed out, one of the best things we can do is be good neighbours. It seems to me education plays a great

part in that. The member for Elgin and several other people here today attended the Ontario Hydro research station yesterday. They pointed out some of the things they were doing to try to alleviate the noise from their transformers. It seems to me that we could spend a lot of money on research in trying to find ways to alleviate the noise that comes from, say, drying fans: different designs, different placements of those fans.

A number of years ago, the University of Guelph did a lot of research on how to place buildings to alleviate the problem of drifting snow, and they could design farmscapes that minimized that damage. Surely we could do the same thing as to the placing of noisy operations. Perhaps we could plant certain types of fast-growing trees, poplar trees and so on, that would give a screen. We could alleviate many of these problems --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. McGuigan: Thank you. We certainly support the intent of this resolution.

Mr. McLean: I would like to speak briefly on the resolution of my colleague with regard to the purchase and leasing of farm property in the area where a bona fide farming operation is in place, but I would like to talk mainly on farm severances that take place in Ontario.

I would like to take this opportunity to address the House on resolution 79. The resolution calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Food to ensure the continuation of active farmers to retain a retirement lot by severance and that the farm community should be allowed, in these circumstances where farms have unworkable agricultural lots, such as small bush lots, ravine lots, inaccessible areas for large farming equipment and other areas, to sever off these parcels at the discretion of land division committees.

As well, I support the resolution's provisions for further owners of the severed parcels of land to acknowledge the farmer's right to farm on the surrounding property. Like many farmers in my riding, and throughout the rest of Ontario for that matter, I am concerned about the possible erosion of the rights of those in the agricultural field if this resolution is not passed.

The history of farming in this province dates back to before the time of John Graves Simcoe, the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada. Having myself farmed nearly 30 years in Oro township, I am well aware of the plight of farmers in the province. I may also be a little more cautious about the concerns of farmers than many of my colleagues whose ridings consist only of urban areas, because 10 per cent of my constituents in the riding of Simcoe East are involved in farming of one kind or another. That 10 per cent may be a minority, but it is the important minority that puts food on our tables.

Farmers and farm families are a proud group with a lengthy history in Ontario. Farmers and the farming community are an independent group who seldom come to the government seeking handouts. This resolution ensures that bona fide farmers or farm families will have the opportunity to retain a retirement lot, if they so desire. In my travels throughout the riding of Simcoe East, I have been made aware that farmers are receiving a mixed and, at times, confusing message from this government with regard to the kind of severance possible for retirement lots. This resolution would do a great deal to clear up that confusion.

It has been pointed out to me that there has been a stampede of farmers to land division committees throughout Ontario because farmers and farm families have a very real fear that if they do not get the retirement lot now, the right to do so later could disappear. Even with the current restrictions on obtaining retirement lots -- I think it is 10 years in some cases, it must remain within the family -- there is a rush to land division committees because of the fear that retirement lot rights might be further eroded.

The first

section of resolution 79 ensures that the farmer or the farm family will indeed have the right to stay on that land. My colleagues in this House who represent urban ridings should be aware that the days when farmers had an opportunity to sell their farms for a relatively large profit and then to retire on that well-deserved nest-egg are long gone. Situations no longer exist where huge profits can be made through the sale of farm land for retirement.

With the existing restrictions, we have zoning throughout this province, and with current municipal official plans, a ceiling has been placed on what farm properties are worth on the open market. Because of this, we must ensure that farmers and farm families in Ontario, those who are producing the food for this province and for export, must be guaranteed by this government that they will be looked after when they retire following a lengthy and productive period of working the land.

The second

section of resolution 79 deals with allowing bona fide farmers and farm families to sever parcels of land for the creation of retirement lots. When we talk about bona fide farmers, we are not referring to those individuals or corporations who rush out, buy anywhere from 100 to 300 acres and then approach a land division committee to sever parcels and sell the rest of the farm land. I am talking about farmers who can prove how long they have been in operation, whether their families are involved in the day-to-day operation of the farm and whether their sons and daughters are living on the farm with them. Those are bona fide farmers and they should have no difficulty in proving it as fact.

What I am saying is, we must allow our farm communities in Ontario to have the opportunity to sever a parcel of land for their retirement where that severance makes sense. I am not referring to taking valuable agricultural land out of production. That would be the last thing on my mind, but the last thing this resolution would permit. I am talking about severing nonproductive land, such as ravines, small bush lots and inaccessible areas.

Most farms in Ontario have a nonproductive area, like those I have mentioned, that would be ideal for severing to create a retirement lot along the swampy areas or parcels where it is nonproductive. Once again, farmers would have no difficulty in proving it to land division committees when they ask for severance.

What about those who are concerned about retirement lots springing up in the middle of productive farmland? That is a problem that is easy to get around simply by placing it on one side of the agricultural parcel. What about the problem of a purchaser of a retirement lot who buys from the farmer and then objects to farming going on next to or around his newly purchased land? I am talking about urban people who buy their retirement lots from a farmer, who eventually want to sell, and then turn around and complain about the smell or noise of agriculture or the fact the snow is not ploughed the way they want it. This problem is not an easy one, but it is answered in this resolution.

This resolution states that any purchaser of that property must acknowledge the farmer's right to continue farming that surrounding property in the manner he or she is accustomed to. That would be an integral part of the deed of that particular portion of land which is going to be severed. It would be there on the deed so the purchaser would know what to expect and not end up calling or writing the local council or member of Parliament to complain about the normal operations of the adjoining farm.

I also like the fact that the resolution put forward by my colleague has provisions in it that, I think, spell out very clearly a bona fide farmer. Many of my colleagues in this Legislature have a farm background, whether they were raised on a farm or are still involved in agriculture to some degree, as I am. They know the farm community is a proud one that does not like to see the Minister of Agriculture and Food travelling around the province telling the people that we have to have a policy in which there are no severances.

When we look at the severances policy that is in place now, where it is under the control of the local municipalities, there is no one who knows any better than the local government where severances should be created and should not be created. As I have said before, the major concern I have is with the bona fide farmer being able to operate and continue to operate without harassment of any kind from the new neighbours once these severances have been created. Sometimes the problem comes with the second or third owner of the property. We have all heard of court cases in other parts of Canada where the farmer has been put out of business because of complaints.

I would hope the member's resolution would signify to the people of this province and to the municipal councils that what they should be doing is putting on the deeds of these properties that the bona fide farmer can stay in operation. I would hope the Legislature would see fit to support my colleague's resolution, as I will.

Mr. Swart: In rising to speak on this motion, I want to say immediately that I strongly support what I think is the principle embodied in this motion: that a bona fide, responsible farmer should have the right to carry on his farm operations without harassment either from the neighbours or from the governmental authorities.

I want, though, to make two comments here about the resolution. The first is, of course, that the Conservatives were in power for 42 years. Why have we not got the legislation in place at this time? After all, the member who is introducing it was, at least for a time, the parliamentary assistant to the then Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Second, I want to say the resolution evades, to a very substantial degree, the real issue, the real problems of planning and enforcement: the issue of preventing it from arising -- I gather from the two speakers for the Conservative Party there may even be some difference in their caucus -- and the right-to-farm legislation, the kind of legislation that has to be enacted to enforce this. These are difficult matters not really dealt with in the resolution.

I support that people moving out into the country and buying a residential lot or a property should, of course, be informed that they are going to have to put up with the problems that may exist for them because of the farming operation. Just to say that, with all the complexity of the legislation and enforcement, is not really to solve the problem.

There is no question that the problems enunciated by the member for Elgin are very real, but some are almost irreconcilable. There is the question of spraying. As the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) knows, this is a big issue down our way in the fruit district, the fact that some people who have bought out in the country do really suffer allergies which may be aggravated by this and the very real difficulty of how to resolve that problem, because the farmers do have to have the right to spray.

The noise issue is a major problem right now. There may be a precedent set by what is happening in the Niagara Peninsula in the town of Lincoln, where Warren Saunders of Mountainview Road, who has been farming there for 20 years, has been charged by the Ministry of the Environment -- this has been in the newspapers and most people know about it -- because of his bird banger to keep the birds out of his grapes. This is a man who has a small farm down there, a good farmer and a longtime farmer who has grapes and cherries. The complainant is a person who lives about 300 feet away from the actual site of the bird banger.

It is difficult to find any other method of dispersing the birds from the grapery or from the cherry orchard without a bird banger. You can put up ribbons, which work fine as long as the wind is blowing, but when the wind goes down, when it is still, the birds sit on these ribbons and pick the cherries or the grapes right off; they do not do any good.

The charges against this man for what took place last fall, in August and September, were just laid this June, and although the complainant may feel he has the right of his property jeopardized, his right to peace and contentment and so on, the simple facts are that this farmer needs that bird banger to protect his crop.

I think there is going to be a major issue on this. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has taken it up, and rightly so; the cost to them of fighting it will probably be at least $10,000. The real issue is the precedent it is going to set, because if the court makes a decision on this, it means that decision will apply likely across the whole Niagara Peninsula, and for that matter across Ontario.

Then there is the question of smells from farm operations, which has been raised here already. The member for Lincoln is smiling. He knows the case of Warren Wiley, one of the best and largest grape farmers in the Niagara Peninsula. In fact, there are a number of brothers operating the farm. They bought this farm quite a number of years ago. There was a manure pile adjacent to the barn. The man they bought it from moved next door and then took the complaint to the Ministry of the Environment.

He got a letter from the Ministry of the Environment in February telling him he had just a few days to move that manure pile -- in February, with six inches of snow on the ground. Ultimately it was resolved, but these are the kinds of things that happen and the kind of harassment farmers have to put up with. There is also the whole issue of dust.

I do not see that this resolution or the speech made by the member for Elgin really dealt with the solution. There are tough decisions that have to be made, and the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) mentioned these. There are legal problems and very tough decisions that have to be made.

Are severances going to be permitted under any circumstances? The Ontario Federation of Labour -- I believe I am correct in saying this -- has come out and said no; not even for retiring farmers, because those are sold after a period of time. As was the case down on the Wiley farm, even the farmer who had been a farmer on the same farm complained about the smells.

Interjection.

Mr. Swart: Ontario Federation of Labour, did I say? Ontario Federation of Agriculture, I am sorry.

Mr. Andrewes: Severances are a big issue with the Ontario Federation of Labour too.

Mr. Swart: Even severances for members of the family often cause real conflicts; there can be no question about that. Are we going to permit them? That is a controversial matter. Even though the Ontario Federation of Agriculture - I got it right that time -- has, and I think rightly so, a fairly tough policy, there are many farmers who do not agree with that. They want the right to sever. As we look across this province at the present time, we find there are all kinds of severances that go on. Drive to almost any populated part of this province and see the number of new houses that are going up.

Are municipalities going to get tough, especially the many municipalities where the majority of the people who live in the municipalities are not farmers and where the farmers have lost the majority vote in those municipalities? Are municipalities going to act tough and pass the necessary legislation? Is the province going to have the courage to do it?

We have to have this right to farm legislation and it is going to have to be tough legislation to protect the farmers. Are governments going to have the courage to do this? The Conservative government did not over the 42 years or it would be in place at the present time.

In the United States, 30 states do have that kind of legislation. They put it in, I may say, with tax concessions, as members likely know. There are no severances in most of those states, not even for a retiring farmer or for members of the family. I suggest that we have to have that kind of legislation here. I know there are rights and wrongs on both sides in these issues.

People who have gone out in good faith and bought a house in a rural area are now subject to some degree to nuisances or maybe even worse; but the fact is, when the chips are down, I want to say that the rights of the farmers must take precedence. Everyone else, when it comes to the bottom line, everyone else who lives out in that countryside and is not a farmer to some degree is an interloper and the farmers must have their rights preserved.

Mr. South: I rise to support this proposal. Unfortunately, today many of us want it both ways. We see the people who locate around Pearson International Airport because they buy the land a little cheaper, because they buy their homes a little cheaper, and immediately they are there they want the airport moved. We have the people who want to move out to the farm and, as the member for Elgin indicated, their view of farming is as farming was 50 years ago, the pastoral scene, the horses pulling a plough and that kind of picture which today does not exist.

We have very noisy equipment on farms today and we have odours. The people from the city get out there and immediately something such as that happens, with noisy equipment at five or six o'clock in the morning, and there is no way they want it.

The farmers have to blame themselves in many cases. I remember very well an instance, when I worked a number of years ago with the Ontario Water Resources Commission, where we investigated a complaint about cattle defecating along the beach of a lake. A farmer had sold off the lots to cottagers, and he also wanted, as he had done 50 years ago and as his father had done before him, to drive the cattle to the shore of the lake and let them drink. Cattle are pretty indiscreet on where they defecate and this did not make the beach area too popular. As I say, here was a farmer who in a sense created his own problem.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Elgin had reserved two minutes.

Mr. McNeil: First of all, I want to thank the honourable members who have spoken in support of this resolution. I appreciate that support. I also appreciate the suggestions that have been made by various honourable members and I agree with the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) that the rights of farmers must take precedence.

Once again, thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for ballot item 14. It will be dealt with further at 12 o'clock.

COTTAGE LOT DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Bernier moved resolution 19:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing the importance that cottage lots play in the economic development of northern Ontario and the social development of all Ontarians, the government of Ontario should provide crown land in the north for the purpose of cottage lot development by Ontario residents.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes. If he wishes to reserve any of that time, that is in order.

Mr. Bernier: I would like to reserve two or three minutes at the end of the debate.

Tomorrow is Friday, June 19, and tomorrow afternoon we will see our highways literally clogged with Ontarians heading towards their summer cottages right across this province, even here in southern Ontario. But there will be literally thousands of Ontarians who will not have the privilege of going to their summer cottages because of the unavailability of crown lot sites in this province, particularly in northern Ontario.

I think it is significant that today we should have two private members' bills before us for debate that deal with that very valuable resource, land. I think it is a sign of the times that we have this issue before us, and we should be acting on it. As I said, thousands will move out to the lakes and rivers of Ontario to their summer cottages. In fact, in northern Ontario we refer to summer cottages as our summer camps.

I have to admit that over the years there has been a declining number of crown lot subdivisions being developed in this province, hence my resolution. I hope the resolution will receive the support of all members of this House and will capture the sensitivity, the concern and the action of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Before we get into the real issues here, I would like to remind members of a few statistics, and maybe a little trivia, starting with Ontario. I am sure members are very much aware that the word "Ontario" derives from an Indian word that means beautiful lakes and beautiful waters. I think it is significant that we should add that to our debate today, because Ontarians are noted for wanting to go to those 250,000 lakes we have in this great province of ours.

In northern Ontario alone, in the 1986 census, we recorded something like 796,000 people in northern Ontario sitting on 780,000 square kilometres of land, roughly one square kilometre of land for every man, woman and child in northern Ontario. On that point alone, I think denying the right of Ontarians to use that crown land is criminal indeed. I say that with sincerity.

I also say that over the years there has been no really rapid growth or increase in the population of northern Ontario, so we are not suffering from the southern Ontario growth syndrome. Northern Ontario has more land than the state of Texas. Northern Ontario is bigger than the state of California. In fact, in northern Ontario we have 90 per cent of the land mass of this province with only about 10 per cent of its population. One fifth of Ontario's whole area is covered with lakes and rivers, so we have the resource and we have the need but we need some good policy direction from this government.

This particular resolution and its issue is a very real one to the northerners of Ontario. They want and they are beginning to demand that the government pay attention to a summer cottage lot development program. Living in northern Ontario, as I do and have done for some number of years, and having my own summer cottage, I sometimes feel a little guilty because I sit there in comfort and in the beauty of Big Vermilion Lake, I feel guilty that I have that summer cottage lot that my mother purchased back in 1945.

Nevertheless, I do feel guilty about the people who cannot obtain a summer cottage lot because of the policies and the programs not implemented by this government. As I said before, we have --

Mr. Fontaine: Which government? Tell the truth.

Mr. Bernier: I will get to the point that the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) has pointed out.

We have something like 250,000 lakes. In fact, in my own riding of Kenora we have some 50,000 lakes that, with proper planning, could support a nominal amount of cottage lot development. I would suggest the following policy for the Ministry of Natural Resources to consider. It is one that has been around for some time and one that I put in Orders and Notices for all members to review, to study, and of course today we are debating it.

The policy I would suggest is to make available for lease or sale up to 1,000 lots per year, subject to estimated demand for cottage lots by Ontario residents, under the following conditions. In the vicinity of all northern Ontario towns with a population of 10,000 or greater, preference should be given to the reservation of waterfront crown lands for public use, based on projections and estimates of future demand for day recreation by residents in the nearby communities and estimates of the amount of waterfront land required to meet that demand.

Where there is no official plan or firmly approved ministry land use plan, no further cottage lots are to be provided in such areas on the lake where the existing development exceeds 30 per cent of the lake's capacity as calculated by the ministry. I think 30 per cent is a very realistic figure. I will get to the point of the Lac Seul area.

Lac Seul is a typical example, a lake that is over 100 miles long and has over 10,000 miles of shoreline, and we have something like 30 cottages on that lake. I will divide 30 cottages into 10,000 miles, a distance that is twice the distance from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British Columbia, and there are 30 cottages on that lake. I agree with wilderness and I agree that we have to preserve some of our areas, but I think this is going too far. We should give the opportunity to the people living today to enjoy the waterfront aspect and the summer cottage aspect they desire.

I did some research some time ago and I sent letters to five Ministry of Natural Resources districts in the northwest. I asked the following questions: the number of crown land seasonal cottage lots the district currently has available for sale or lease; the number of crown land seasonal cottage lots developed by each of those districts in the last five years; and the number of seasonal cottage lots developed on crown land which had been sold or leased in that specific district for each of those five years.

I would like to put on the record the answers I received. I might say that it took me some time to get a response from the districts. I think it was something like six months before they did respond; and the districts did not respond directly, they responded to the deputy minister. Nevertheless, I was pleased to get the information and I want to put it on the record because it shows exactly what has happened in the last five years.

In all fairness, I must point out that during the last few years of the previous administration there was a freeze put on the development of crown cottage lots across northern Ontario for the purpose of studying further lakes and doing some proper planning. But something like seven years now have passed, and I think it is time to get on with the job. Surely seven years would give the ministry sufficient time to study those lakes and the needs of northerners and their desire to obtain a simple cottage lot.

The first question concerned the number of crown land seasonal cottage lots that are currently for sale by the ministry. In the Dryden district, which is a large district, they had two summer cottage lots for sale. In Fort Frances, they had 32 conventional lots and six remote lots available. There was none available in the district of Ignace. There was none available in the district of Kenora. In Red Lake, there were 18 conventional lots and several remote lots. In Sioux Lookout district there were no lots available, and in Geraldton there were 20.

The second question I asked concerned the number of crown land seasonal cottage lots developed in the last five years. In the past five years, the Dryden district of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Fort Frances district of the Ministry of Natural Resources reported that they had developed none. Not one single cottage lot was developed in the last five years.

Ignace had developed 30. The minister was up there just prior to my survey and he became very much aware of the desire of that particular community to embark on a summer cottage lot program for economic development and the economic benefits that would flow. They also reported that the district of Kenora had developed no summer cottage lots in the last five years. Red Lake had developed eight in 1981. Sioux Lookout and Geraldton had not developed one cottage lot in the last five years.

The third question concerned the number of seasonal cottage lots developed on crown land that had been sold or leased in the districts during these five years.

In 1981, Dryden sold or leased two; Fort Frances had none; Ignace had six; Kenora had one; the district of Red Lake had 12; the district of Sioux Lookout had 13; the district of Geraldton had 10.

In 1982, the MNR district of Dryden had three; Fort Frances had none; Ignace had four; Kenora had one; Red Lake had six; Sioux Lookout had one; and Geraldton had four.

In 1983, the MNR district of Dryden sold or leased three lots; Fort Frances had none; Ignace had 12; Kenora had one; Red Lake district had one; and Sioux Lookout had one. Imagine; Geraldton had only eight.

In 1984, Dryden leased three; Fort Frances again had none; Ignace had five; Kenora had none; Red Lake had four; Sioux Lookout had two; and Geraldton had five.

In 1985, Dryden again leased three; Fort Frances still had no lots; Ignace had two; Kenora had one; Red Lake had two; Sioux Lookout had one; and Geraldton had 11.

In the travels I have made across northern Ontario, the question of summer cottage lots comes up on a very regular basis. The town of Ear Falls, as my colleague the member for Cochrane North will attest, has been striving to get a summer cottage lot development on the north end of Lac Seul.

Mr. Fontaine: For 15 years.

Mr. Bernier: That is right. They have been asking for a small summer cottage lot development, not a lot of lots. They said five to 10 over a five-year basis would satisfy their needs. Remember that the Lac Seul basin is about 100 miles long and, as I said earlier, it has about 10,000 miles of shoreline. I see nothing wrong with the development of a small summer cottage lot project at the north end of Lac Seul and at the south end of Lac Seul, to satisfy the needs of the local residents. I am not promoting the sale of summer cottage lots to nonresidents of this province, but there is a need and I think that need has to be addressed.

I must say that the possessive attitude of the Ministry of Natural Resources has to go. Over the years they have taken a very possessive attitude, and I think it is indefensible that they would look to crown land as their domain. I have been a strong believer that crown land, one of our most valuable resources, is a real asset and should be used in that direction and not be a liability to the taxpayers of this province.

It is a liability now because we have to care for it and protect it. It could be sold off in a very planned manner, one that would create economic activity with the development of a cottage lot program and bring some economic development to the needy communities of northern Ontario. It is fair to say that living in northern Ontario and having a summer cottage lot go hand in hand. It is a part of our way of life.

I urge the minister to look at the issue, to shed his possessive attitude with regard to crown land and open up the crown land to Ontario residents. In fact, I would go one step further and say there are many small entrepreneurs in northern Ontario who look for hobby farms. They want to live outside the small communities. They want to have a small farming operation, maybe some cows and chickens, a few pigs that would help them in their way of life.

But I can say that people have told me they will never go to an MNR office again and ask for crown land because they literally get laughed at. The staff just look at them and say, "We have not sold crown land for the last five, six or eight years and we do not intend to sell any more." For commercial purposes permission is granted for the development of a particular industry, but for the individual to get a piece of crown land in northern Ontario sometimes is practically impossible.

We have been so possessive that waterfront lots in the Kenora area which are totally undeveloped -- no roads, no services, nothing at all, just a bare, barren lot -- now sell for up to $20,000. Roads must be installed, but many people buy these lots and take on the responsibility of putting in the services themselves. With the massive amount of crown land that we have in northern Ontario we should be taking a more positive and open attitude towards it.

I want to put on the record the names of a number of people in the Sioux Lookout-Hudson area. One gentleman, Clem Jung, made a point of going around and in two days gathered the names of people who were interested in obtaining a summer cottage lot on the south end of Lac Seul. I will run through them quickly.

Clem Jung, Ulli Stobbe, André Martensen, Dave Williams, Bill Dunstan, Gord Hill, Ray Lacroix, Niel Madsen, Victor Ciurko, Trent Ciurko, Rick Hendrickson, George Allen, John Bernier, Dave Allen, Ronny Elliote, Alvin Haney, Rick Tinney, James Ayotte, Harry Glena, Kurt Fender, Cecil Breton, Peter Breton, Ray and Mary Trocha, Don May, Gary Lapworth, Barbara Budzinski and Kerry Glena, Sylvester Kiepek, Don Starratt, who lived in the area for some 60 years, Don Metza, Len Metza, Wallace Mulholland, Hubert Moe, Garth and Brad Hyslop, Bernard Oakley, Steven Turetski, William Makahnouk, Donald Fenelon, Richard Czekaj, Barry Oakley, Ian Oakley, Stephan Csuzdi, Roger Oakley, Dave and Irene Starratt, Richard George, Michael George, Robert McClendon, Steve Bugera, Mike Bugera, Bill Bugera and John Nenka.

Those names were gathered in two days in the Sioux Lookout-Hudson area, people who desired a summer cottage lot on the bottom end of Lac Seul. These people have lived there all their lives, and I think they are entitled to some kind of consideration. The need is there, there is no question about it. We have the resource. The people who reside in northern Ontario -- and I am sure it is the same right across not only the northwest but also in the Thunder Bay area, the Chapleau area and, I suspect, in the Cochrane area and the Hearst area -- these people, by their nature, tend to want to be beside the crystal clear waters of northern Ontario.

We are asking that the members who will speak on this particular matter support the resolution. I am hopeful that we can get some action because the minister himself has indicated that a summer cottage lot program across northern Ontario of the size I have suggested would pump about $7 million to $8 million into the economy of northern Ontario on practically an annual basis.

When you think that a summer cottage lot today costs anywhere from $10,000 to $35,000, and take into account the ongoing expense that is incurred -- as I know, because I have one -- with the development of a summer cottage lot, it adds to the economic development and diversification of the small areas of northern Ontario. It is a real need; it is a positive one. I think the time has come to take a more realistic view with respect to the disposition and management of crown land as it relates to the development of summer cottage lots in northern Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The member wishes to reserve one minute and 15 seconds.

Mr. Wildman: I rise in support of the resolution presented by the member for Kenora. As members will know, I was a member of the Advisory Committee on Resource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario, the so-called Rosehart committee appointed by the then Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the member for Cochrane North.

One of the recommendations we made in that committee was that crown land cottage lot development in northern Ontario be implemented as a way of pumping resources and money into the economy of northern Ontario. My colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) was also a member of that committee. We saw that as one potential approach to improving the economy of the north.

With regard to the resolution presented by the member for Kenora, I certainly am sympathetic to his position that this should be for Ontario residents, he knows the northwest better than I; however, I would not personally be opposed to other Canadian citizens, people from Manitoba for instance, who might want to purchase cottage lots in northern Ontario. I would not be opposed to allowing Canadian residents to obtain cottage lots for development in our part of Ontario. It would benefit the economy of the north and it would not alienate the ownership by having foreign residents purchase cottage lots. They would still be Canadians.

I want to emphasize, however, that there is a need for planning. We on the Rosehart committee recognized this and I think the Ministry of Natural Resources recognizes it. As the member for Kenora mentioned, the previous government imposed a freeze on the sale of cottage lots on crown land in northern Ontario because it believed there was a need for the development of lake management plans prior to the development of subdivisions for seasonal lots for camps, and I agree with that.

I had some problem with the approach of the previous government. I think it was when the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) was the Minister of Natural Resources. He imposed a freeze and said we must have planning before we could develop a subdivision, but then he did not provide any funds to the planners so they could do the planning. We had a freeze. People could not obtain the lots they wanted and there was no money for the planning so the lots could then be developed. I thought that was a most unfortunate approach by the previous government.

I understand the new government is going to allow the Ministry of Natural Resources districts to sell this year some of the lots it already had on stream before the freeze and that it is going to provide them with funds so they can do the planning that would be necessary to develop more lots for camps.

However, I am concerned that it is going to take some time to get that funding. For instance, in the Wawa district in my area, people living in the Wawa-Dubreuilville area have been attempting to get lots for years. They would like to get lots on some of the big lakes such as Wabatongushi Lake, Wabatong Lake as it is called, or even some of the smaller lakes around the area, but ministry staff has not been able to provide them with these lots.

They have said, "There is a freeze on." We would say, "When is the freeze going to be finished?'' They would say, "We have to do the lake management plan first." "When is the lake management plan going to be completed?" "We have not started it yet." "Why have you not started it yet?" "Because we cannot get any funds for it." "Have you applied for the funds?" "Yes, we have applied for the funds for the last three years and each time we did not get them from the region." Why did they not get it from the region? Because the region did not get it from the overall budget of the ministry.

If this government is going to provide the funds, I urge it to provide the funds across the north so that each district can commence the lake management plans that must be completed. We cannot allow the development of lots for camps on the lakes of the north unless we have analysed how many lots each lake can sustain. Some lakes are small and shallow and it would not be ecologically acceptable for all the land on those lakes to be developed. Other lakes are large, deep lakes and could sustain many more lots. We cannot determine that without the planning. We cannot tell how many lots might be made available.

We also do not know what areas should be reserved for remote cottage lot development as opposed to lots developed where we might have road access, for instance. Those kinds of questions have to be answered and they can only be answered through the planning process. The planning process can only be commenced and completed if the government is prepared to ensure that there is funding for each district. I urge the government to ensure that.

To be frank, I am disappointed that we do not have before us any members of the government to hear this debate. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) is not here. I see the member for Cochrane North, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) here. He obviously has an interest in this. I know he is concerned about it and I am glad to see him here.

Mr. McGuigan: I am parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Wildman: I am sorry; the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources is here. I am glad to see that.

I am very concerned about one aspect of this as it might be interpreted in the north. I commend the member for Kenora for putting in the point about residency. I said earlier that I thought it might be expanded to Canadian residents, but I am concerned that in some areas of my part of the province up to 90 per cent to 97 per cent of the land is owned by non-Canadians. Usually, it is owned by Americans, but in some cases it is not Americans. In some cases, there are Europeans. German interests have purchased a lot of land.

In most cases, obviously in the past few years, it is private land they have been purchasing. I am concerned about the amount of land in prime development areas in terms of good waterfront property that is going into the hands of non-Canadians.

If we get the development we are asking for here, I hope it is part of the policy that this development should benefit Canadians in terms of the people who can obtain the lots. Even subsequently, if they develop a camp and in some future year might like to sell it, I hope there will be some provision for at least giving first option, if not more than that, to Canadian residents for the purchase of those lots.

In northern Ontario, we live and work a long distance from the amenities many people, in the Toronto area for instance, take for granted. We do not have them and in many cases we do not really want them, but what we do want is the opportunity to enjoy our resources. We live in a very beautiful part of the province. There is a large amount of crown land. It really does not make sense for the people who live in the towns and cities of northern Ontario not to be able to get out and enjoy the lakes, rivers and forests of our part of the province.

For that matter, as a northerner, I know northerners would welcome people from southern parts of Ontario and other parts of the province to come, purchase property, build camps and make their summer homes, and in some cases even winter recreational homes, in northern Ontario. We would welcome that kind of development. It would not only be an infusion of capital into the northern economy, but it would also improve the relationships of people and improve the way of life of both northerners and people from other parts of the province.

I certainly support this proposal. I supported it as a member of the Rosehart committee and I support it as a representative of a large northern riding where we could develop a lot of cottage lots.

Mr. Fontaine: It is a pleasure for me to be here today to speak on this resolution. After my first trip as a minister, the first thing I did when I came back was to tell the Premier (Mr. Peterson) about the problem of this land in northern Ontario on which the previous government had put a freeze. The first thing I heard from Reeve Leschuk, from the mayor of Kenora and from the reeve of Ignace in my friend's riding was this land thing.

I have the same problem at my place. I recall that with the previous government and these lots, it was always based on local demand. I recall that one time when the lots were given, they always gave you a lot behind a rock or in a swamp. When people were trying to get land, a cottage lot where there was a beach or something else, there was always an excuse. We did not create that; I guess it was created through the years. That has passed.

I would like to point out that this government is aware of the impact that cottages and cottaging could have on the northern Ontario economy. As members know, I pushed that when I was the minister. Last winter, before my holidays, there was an economic committee on northern development. It was a small committee. A former deputy minister worked on it with Mary Mogford and my deputy minister at that time, George Tough. The Premier was behind this too. He agreed that land in northern Ontario should be used as a development tool.

As all honourable members here today surely know, the face of the northern Ontario economy has changed considerably in recent years. Many resource companies have been forced to rationalize operations, to lay off employees and in some cases to shut down operations. Although economic conditions are improving in some parts of the north, unemployment in the region as a whole is still several percentage points higher than the national average.

This situation has been one of this government's greatest concerns. A number of initiatives have been undertaken to improve the economic wellbeing of northern Ontarians, not just for a few months or years but also for the long term. We are making a concerted effort to assist our northern communities in their goal of broadening their economic base.

One of the initiatives this government is looking at to help the north involves using crown land as a tool to promote economic development in that region. About 87 per cent of all the land in northern Ontario belongs to the crown. We all know that. We know there is great potential for the people of northern Ontario to use crown land as a tool to develop and diversify the economy.

Recognizing this, my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources -- and the Premier through Northern Development and Mines -- is taking a close look at the MNR present-day policy concerning crown land. He has already taken steps with the assistance of local northern development councils. I want to refer to that, because lately everything the northern councils are working on comes here on these Thursday mornings as a resolution from our friends in the opposition: on gas, on Hydro and on this.

We spent the winter and we reported to the Minister of Natural Resources on May 29 on the issue we are looking at. We were looking at cottage lot development because we had to study the land tenure and ownership. The northern development councils looked at that and reported -- the report is already done -- on resource access roads, small crown land rehabilitation initiatives -- these were the highlights they looked at -- tourism, waste disposal -- we have to figure that out because it is a problem -- crown land camping, municipal development, agricultural development, wild game -- there are all kinds of ideas we had -- and programs and practices of other ministries.

At the same time, we have to look at our local natives, because they are involved in this; we forget that. We have to look at what we are going to do. The northern development councils' review of this matter is intended to be an ongoing exercise. This mandate was given to the NDCs by the Premier in Sault Ste. Marie last fall with the blessing of Ministry of Natural Resources people. We worked closely with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and with the Minister of Natural Resources on this. The report is already done.

This week I was at Marathon and Thunder Bay. We are still discussing this, because we want to be sure that the ownership condition we are talking about is what the people of northern Ontario want. We do not want something to be imposed on us. I have nothing against Toronto but I want this thing to be the ideas and initiatives of the people of northern Ontario, to see what they feel inside as to what they want.

In addition to all this are fish, fur-farming, peat extraction and processing and tourism enterprises. The use of water power to generate electricity would also be encouraged on crown land. These projects reflect a fundamental change in how crown land tenure in Ontario is handled. Policies are being reviewed to make them more responsive to local initiatives, to provide economic benefits, and in turn to create jobs in northern Ontario. I know the Minister of Natural Resources is very enthusiastic about the potential of offering crown land cottage lots as a springboard for economic growth.

In southern Ontario, many studies have proved the economic benefits of cottaging. These studies show that each cottage built brings many thousands of dollars worth of direct and indirect benefits into the local economy through the cost of labour and building materials. There are also long-term, ongoing benefits. Cottage owners buy groceries, gasoline and other products from local businesses. The Ministry of Natural Resources will be conducting a market analysis of cottaging in the north that will determine the most likely markets for cottages.

I am pleased to inform you that the Minister of Natural Resources will then be making an announcement in the near future concerning the offering of crown land cottage lots in northern Ontario.

Meanwhile, the government also plans to revise our crown land policies to assist and encourage entrepreneurs. We will be looking at the possibility of providing long-term tenure on crown land for tourist operators who have made a major investment or wish to extend their operations.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is also looking at the extension of its crown land recreation program to take in the entire northern part of the province. Under this program, now in place in northwestern Ontario, nonresidents are charged a small fee for the privilege of camping on crown land. This fee reflects the government's belief that nonresidents should share the cost of maintaining Ontario crown recreation resources. Most important, charging this fee has encouraged nonresidents to start using private facilities. This means all residents of northern Ontario will share in the benefits of this program.

We know that crown land can be used as a powerful and effective tool for encouraging economic development and diversity in the north. At the same time, however, we must not rush in without first carefully examining the potential effect of the new crown land policy. While the government intends to act decisively on this issue, which has been stalled for many years as the honourable member so well knows, we refuse to act carelessly. That is why we asked the NDCs to report. Our crown land resources are too important to be treated lightly.

It is therefore vital that we follow the full process of careful preparation and conservation before we act, and that is what we are doing. That way we will know that we will be able to harness safely the full economic potential of crown land in the north.

Mr. Pierce: It is indeed a pleasure for me to stand and support the resolution of the member for Kenora with respect to crown land. I hear the member for Cochrane South --

Mr. Fontaine: Cochrane North.

Mr. Pierce: The member for Cochrane North; I am sorry. It is interesting, because it is not that many weeks ago that the member for Cochrane North stood up and said -- in fact, he is quoted in the North Bay Nugget as saying it -- we should open up crown land for Americans.

Mr. Fontaine: I've got nothing against them.

Mr. Pierce: The resolution that is proposed by the member for Kenora is in fact that we should, first of all, open up crown land for Ontario residents.

Mr. Rowe: He doesn't sell out to the Americans.

Mr. Pierce: I think certainly we, as legislators in this province, have a commitment to the people of Ontario and a second commitment to the people of Canada and no commitment to the Americans in respect to giving away our lands.

Mr. Fontaine: Read the whole article. You will see. You don't know what I said; you weren't there. I said there should be a small amount for Americans.

Mr. Pierce: I believe northern Ontario residents and residents of Ontario have as much to contribute to the development of northern Ontario and the development of Ontario, certainly, as any American has.

There are thousands and thousands of miles of lakeshore property in northern Ontario, and there are miles and miles of square acres of crown land surrounding the lakes. Unfortunately, for all those Ontario residents who would greatly appreciate the opportunity to own cottages on lakeshores in northern Ontario, this provincial government has a very strong voice that says it is not prepared to do very much.

Mr. Fontaine: I said five per cent American people on the other side.

Mr. Pierce: I have a letter from the Minister of Natural Resources, who in fact summarizes by saying, "The cottage lot program is currently under review and I expect it to be moving forward in the near future." That letter was dated November 28, 1986. We are now in the middle of June and we see no movement whatsoever.

Mr. McGuigan: Did you hear what the man said?

Mr. Pierce: I have heard a lot of the things the member for Cochrane North has said, but I hate to think I would have to base my information on what the member for Cochrane North is saying.

I quote from a letter of a constituent in my riding:

"Dear Jack:

"On October 2, 1986, there was a draw in Atikokan for cottage property lots. In excess of 200 people registered to participate in a draw for three lots."

I heard the member for Cochrane North say the old government used to put up little draws and it used to let people have a chance for a piece of property behind a rock. I would like to note that the date of this letter was October 8, 1986. If I recall rightly, we had a new government in 1986 that was going to do things differently.

The writer goes on to say: "I was not a participant in the draw, however, I was there and observed that some individuals had as many as 10 registrants seeking a lot on their behalf. On the other hand, I also observed people with young families who would have liked to have acquired a lot to develop with their children as they grow to maturity. Having had the opportunity of developing lakeshore property while my family was young probably made me more conscious of the wishes and the desires of these young couples. I felt for them and was disappointed for them.

"It seems to me that we live in an area that is very sparsely populated and with countless lakes available for development by people who wish to have a lakeshore retreat. Surely there is enough land so that people, residents in Ontario who wish, may acquire some property.

"As well as providing for the needs of a large number of people, I visualize both social and economic spinoffs from land development. I suggest that you use your office to encourage the Minister of Natural Resources to make available lakeshore property at moderate prices for people wishing to acquire land."

Here again is an Ontario resident. That is signed by Mr. Fontana, who is also a member of the northern development council chaired by the member for Cochrane North.

We have to recognize the importance that cottage lot development has for the small, isolated communities in the north. Cottage lot owners bring with them a demand for the local services. The amount of service required by people building cottages on northern retreats has already been talked about here earlier today.

Something that has not been mentioned here today is something that is very important to areas in northern Ontario. We all understand and appreciate that in an urban area, when your family grows up the children marry the girl next door or the guy next door and they build a house next door or they build a house down the street.

Under the present system we have in Ontario, under this present government, when you live in a rural area in Ontario your sons and daughters may grow up and they may marry the girl or boy next door, but they certainly do not build next door, because they do not have any access to any property.

It is a known fact in many areas that have been developed to promote the tourist industry, that those families in fact lose their young people, that it is just another method of making sure the young people do not stay in northern Ontario. We do not give them an opportunity to build a home or, in actual fact, to locate in our communities.

Considering that tourism and service industries are two of the largest employers in northern Ontario, it is not difficult to recognize the importance that increased traffic through the north would have on the local economy. The committee on the resource-dependent communities in northern Ontario recognized in its recommendations the importance that a major influx of tourists would have on employment opportunities for the young and the unemployed.

I strongly believe that all Ontario residents should have the opportunity to purchase lakeshore property in the north. This government should not stand in the way of residents who wish to invest in their future by purchasing property that will serve them in their retirement years as well as in their youth and give them an opportunity to grow with their families.

The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) indicated in his remarks that he thought perhaps we could extend the resolution so that residents of Canada would be able to purchase property in Ontario. I believe our first obligation and the first opportunity for the purchase of land is to the Ontario residents already living there.

At present in the north we have problems of campers wandering throughout the region, camping at random wherever they can pitch their tent. We talk about the crown land camping arrangement we now have. It does not take very long for a person living in a region to find out where the crown land camping area is limited by its boundaries; it only requires campers to go down the road another 500 yards and they are outside the boundaries and camp anyplace.

The government should also remember that our provincial parks in southern Ontario surrounding the Golden Horseshoe are usually 70 per cent booked for the summer season months before anyone has a chance to go on a holiday. Certainly, anyone travelling on the highways knows how difficult it is to get into a provincial campground on a weekend, because those sites are already booked ahead by residents in southern Ontario who see no opportunity to purchase crown land and no opportunity to develop a cabin. As a result, they go in, they book their camping spot for the whole year and that is in fact what they use for their camping.

It is almost impossible to get a camping site in one of these provincial parks for a weekend in the summer, unless you show up on a Wednesday or Thursday to pitch your tent. Is this the type of provincial commitment we are looking for in our province? We recognize there are thousands of square miles of provincial parks in the north, but this does not alleviate the pressure in the southern Ontario provincial parks, because residents who do not own a cottage in the north are not likely to drive hundreds of miles every weekend in the summer to camp in a provincial park.

However, those campers would drive hundreds of miles every weekend if they owned a cottage in the north; and these cottage owners would bring with them demand on local services, they would bring with them a need for the additional cost of getting established up there. Also, they would provide some activity in northern Ontario which is so desperately needed.

I would also like to address the problem of residents who have been breaking the regulations of the Ministry of Natural Resources by extending their rights as houseboat owners, houseboat suppliers, and those who own trapper's cabins. The Ministry of Natural Resources has taken it upon itself, where trappers have cabins and like to use them in the summer, to extend its policy by saying, "If you use your trapper's cabin for any more than that week before trapping season and the week after, we will burn the cabin out and you will no longer be able to use it, even as a trapper's cabin."

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. The member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to have the opportunity to support this resolution by the member for Kenora. I think it is in the interest of the province and particularly those of us from northern Ontario. The potential of economic development in the north from development of cottage lots and the dedication of some of our crown land to that purpose would be of benefit to all of us.

I suggest also that there not be a restriction to Ontario residents only, but as my colleague the member for Algoma suggested that such development be made available for cottages and ownership for any Canadian resident. I think the restriction on ownership by foreign residents should stay in place and should be an element to control the development of those properties so that they stay in the hands of Canadians, but I do not particularly see a reason for restricting it to Ontario residents only. Certainly, the residents of Manitoba should have the opportunity to have a cottage property in the areas near them in northwestern Ontario.

As far as I am concerned, one of the main reasons I and many of us who love the north so much live in the north is the quality of life we have in the north. In many respects, it is a very different type of life than in southern Ontario. Many of the people in the south do not see the difference or perhaps have not had the opportunity to visit at length or to live in the north.

One of the real differences has to do with the access to the outdoors, the space we have and, in particular, the opportunity to have a second home. It is very usual, not out of place at all, for the average wage earner in a community like mine, Sault Ste. Marie, to have his own cottage. In fact, it is almost an expectation of a steelworker at Algoma Steel that he should have the right and the opportunity to have a cottage within reasonable access distance to his home, where he can go and spend his summers particularly.

More and more people are using these cottages for recreational activities in other seasons of the year. To a large portion of our population of northern Ontario, those outdoor activities are what makes our life so enjoyable. We are starting to see some restrictions in terms of the access to those properties because of private land being developed, and there are some restrictions.

In fact, most of the property within 30 miles of Sault Ste. Marie is privately owned. For those of us in the Sault, there is quite considerable land available; but there are a lot of Sault residents who spend a lot of time in their bush camps in the Agawa area, up the Algoma Central Railway, up along the highway to Chapleau or in the Wawa area. Once you get past Batchawana, going along the Trans-Canada Highway, there is very little private land available for cottage lot development.

With sensible restrictions and sensible planning of the lakefront development, we can pursue this opportunity in a reasonable, sensible manner and give more residents of our communities the chance to have that opportunity.

If residents outside northern Ontario are given and see the chance of what life can be in terms of their summer vacations, and if they want to develop a cottage property in northern Ontario, there is a real opportunity for economic development, bringing a lot of spending into the north in the development of properties and building of summer homes or cottages -- camps as we call them -- in the Sault area.

The areas are absolutely beautiful. Fishing is great, and hunting; skiing in the winter. Surprising to a lot of southern residents, even the swimming is great on most of the lakes in northern Ontario; even Lake Superior, where my family has had a cottage all my life. As children, we always spent our summers out at Goulais Bay, which is about a 25-mile drive from the Sault.

My dad was always able to commute back and forth to work in a 45-minute drive, which is probably less time than it takes the average driver in the Metropolitan Toronto area to drive in to work from a suburban home. That was considered a reasonable distance to drive that northerners put up with in the summer. Of course, year-round, we have our own home in the city as well.

I would like to see us all have those kinds of opportunities available to us in the north. The property and land restrictions, and the population of southern Ontario, does not make that opportunity available in this area. We would like to extend that opportunity for them to be able to come up to the north and spend some of their earnings in the north and develop property there.

I think we have to have some restrictions, though, on the use of the land, particularly in terms of the amounts that are sold. There is a huge area of crown land in the north and there is no reason the sale of cottage lots for private development should require the use of very significant portions of land. I do not think we want large amounts going to developers for large-scale development. We want the restrictions down to family-sized parcels of property with restricted amounts of lakefront on them.

In particular, we have to prevent speculation in the property. Perhaps there have to be some kind of rules in terms of the need to do some kind of positive development on any property that is sold. We want to have assurances that the property is not for speculation, that there will be a cottage developed on the property, that someone is going to build a home or use it for camping purposes or a hobby farm, as the member for Kenora has suggested as a possibility as well.

It is unfortunate that a complete freeze was put on the development of crown land for cottage property by the former administration about half a dozen years ago. The reason for it was certainly a valid one in terms of wanting to ensure that we have proper water and lake management plans in place to protect the environment and ecology of the area in its development. There is a serious problem with some lakes which already have a lot of property sold on them; there is no way we could have more development without seriously impacting those lakes.

That is particularly true in southern Ontario and in some areas of the near north. In some of the more wide open spaces, with proper, responsible planning, there is no reason we cannot undertake a major initiative in this area.

Finally, I want to ask that the government look seriously at taking action on this, that they look at it not only as a way to use a limited portion of a valuable resource we have in the north for the benefit of the residents of Ontario, but also as a real potential for economic stimulus to northern Ontario in bringing more people into the north on a seasonal basis and the spending that would result from that.

I would like to support this resolution very strongly and hope that everyone in the House will as well.

Mr. Speaker: It appears we have just 75 seconds left for the member for Kenora.

Mr. Bernier: If I may, I would like to express my appreciation to all members of the House who spoke on this resolution for their very strong support. I sense a common thrust and a common feeling from northerners and from the residents of Ontario who do not have a summer cottage lot.

As the members stand in their places to vote on this resolution -- and I hope it is passed unanimously -- I am sure they will think about the thousands and thousands of Ontarians who, tomorrow afternoon, Friday afternoon, will not have the opportunity to travel to a summer cottage lot. If this resolution is carried, and if that government moves on this resolution, it too will be satisfied and those members will be happy Ontarians from here on in.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes the allotted time for private members' public business.

RIGHT TO FARM

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McNeil has moved resolution 14. If any members are opposed to a vote on this motion, will they please rise?

There being none, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

COTTAGE LOT DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bernier has moved resolution 15. If any members are opposed to a vote on this motion, will they please rise?

There being none, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:02 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin routine proceedings, I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join with me in recognizing in the Speaker's gallery Danylo Shumuk.

Mr. Shumuk is a recently released political prisoner, having been first captured by the Soviet secret police in 1945 and subsequently sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted and in 1956 he was released, only to be rearrested in 1957. He gained his freedom in 1967 and again in 1972 was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in a labour camp and five years in exile.

Mr. Shumuk was released in January of this year but was placed under house arrest following a visit to the Canadian embassy in Moscow in February. On May 11, he was granted permission to leave the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, finally, on May 24, Mr. Shumuk arrived in Canada.

Mr. Shumuk, born in the Ukraine, is accompanied today by his brother and officials of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Shumuk to the legislative chamber.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORLD YOUTH WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. McCague: From July 5 to 11, Collingwood will be hosting the World Youth Wrestling Championship, the only international sports event being held in Ontario this summer. So far, there are 15 nations competing: the People's Republic of China, Israel, Taiwan, France, Italy, Switzerland, India, Turkey, Peru, Japan, New Zealand, the United States, Britain, Belgium and, of course, Canada. More nations are expected, for a total of 700 athletes, all competing for world titles in cadet, junior freestyle and Graeco-Roman styles of wrestling.

Subject to approval by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, cable television companies across Canada will be able to pick up via satellite four two-hour programs featuring the title matches. These competitors are all national champions. They will be vying for gold medals in each of 11 weight categories in four championships.

By competing in the World Youth Wrestling Championship, they will be preparing for the 1992 Olympic Games, thus providing Ontario with an opportunity to see the Olympic champions of the future involved in one of the original Olympian sports. Nationally, Canada is among the top 10 nations in amateur wrestling. This will also provide Ontario residents with a chance to see in action the Canadian team, many of whom come from Ontario. Everyone is welcome.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS

Mr. Foulds: The desperate need for speech language pathologists in this province, especially in northern Ontario, can be illustrated by the following:

1. Elliot Lake has failed to get a speech language pathologist after three years of trying.

2. Preschool children in Thunder Bay wait nine months for an assessment and intervention. A crucial learning year turns into anger, frustration and despair.

3. Many school boards do not have speech language pathologists at all.

4. Stroke victims simply do not recover their speech.

In February, I made three specific suggestions to the Premier (Mr. Peterson). The Premier committed himself at that time to a solution to the problem within a week or two. His deputy minister in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines said: "As soon as possible, we will brief you fully. We will make a public announcement very shortly thereafter." Four months later, zero has happened -- zippo, zilch, zero.

One of the ministers involved, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), wrote me on June 5, saying, "I cannot provide you with an immediate resolution." The Premier's credibility is on the line. Did the Premier mislead the House, or is he incapable? Cannot even the Premier make Community and Social Services, Health, Northern Development and Mines and Skills Development work together? Where is his leadership when he needs it ?

PIT BULL TERRIERS

Mr. McGuigan: I would like to direct the attention of this House to a very disturbing incident that involved pit bull terriers -- a vicious, aggressive, unpredictable and deadly dangerous breed of dog.

The pit bull dog is a breed that has been raised solely for fighting purposes and has often attracted the wrong type of owner. There are indications that drug traffickers and other criminals tend to possess this breed to feel more secure in their activities. One of these dogs can have a policeman by the throat more quickly than a policeman can draw his service revolver.

The most recent, though by no means isolated, tragic occurrence took place last weekend in California, when a two-and-one-half-year-old boy was killed by a pit bull dog guarding his owner's marijuana crop. This is the 11th gruesome death -- seven have been children -- in an eight-month period in the United States.

Apparently, many people in our province find this dog appealing. Unfortunately, there have already been victims of attacks by these dogs, mostly children and the elderly, and they have been severely -- in one case, fatally -- injured.

The situation warrants immediate action. We cannot passively sit back and wait to see what will happen next in our province. Serious measures should be considered, including a total ban of this breed in Ontario. All owners of pit bull terriers should be held criminally responsible if their dogs in any way endanger a person's life.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Pope: I wish to draw the attention of the members of the Legislature to the presence inside and outside the Legislature today of constituents from the riding of Cochrane South, the city of Timmins, led by Jean Larcher. They are the Victims of Mining Environment. Over the years, many of us, including myself, have represented these individuals and their families in compensation hearings for dependency benefits when their husbands or loved ones have died of lung cancer. We have been unsuccessful.

In 1979, I revealed in this Legislature the existence of the Wigle study, which clearly pointed to a higher-than-normal incidence of lung cancer in the Timmins area. The result was the Muller study, which has proven that the high incidence of lung cancer is caused by working conditions.

The Industrial Disease Standards Panel has made some recommendations to the Workers' Compensation Board. I reject those recommendations. I call upon the Ministry of Labour and this government to change the standards.

I say to the minister, give the widows and the families of miners dead from lung cancer the compensation that is due to them. Join with all of us, I ask the members of the assembly, in fighting for justice for these families. The government should put in place a just and fair compensation system that will immediately give compensation to the widows and their families. They have waited far too long.

TENANTS HOT LINE

Mr. Reville: On behalf of the thousands of tenants in the city of York and on behalf of the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), who has been called away on a family emergency, I want to express my disappointment at the announcement made to cut Tenants Hot Line funding. Tenants Hot Line is a community legal clinic in the city of York, established 10 years ago to fight for tenants.

The member for Oakwood has told us about tenants on Warwick, Plaxton, Vaughan, Marlee and Bathurst who fought against landlords who wanted to convert affordable apartments to luxury and condominium units. Those efforts supported our fight for Bill 11 and the preservation of rental housing.

The management review conducted by Professor Wardell was requested by the clinic's board and the clinic funding committee as a step in working out the problems. After a year, the management review was completed. As I understand it, the report was never circulated or used as a document for discussion but only as a tool to close the clinic.

There is no doubt that the people of York need Tenants Hot Line. York has 27,000 rental units. At a time when we are experiencing a record low vacancy rate and hear daily stories about landlords evicting tenants illegally or charging outrageous key fees, it is irresponsible for this government to leave York tenants unprotected.

VISITORS

Ms. Caplan: There are some guests in the members' gallery whom I would like to introduce today: Councillor Jim McGuffin, chairman of the transportation committee from the city of North York and representative of ward 11; and Councillor Paul Sutherland, chairman of the development and economic growth committee from the city of North York, representing ward 14, which is a significant part of my riding of Oriole. They have delivered to me some petitions which I will be delivering to the Legislature during the appropriate time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Does it have anything to do with the subway?

Ms. Caplan: It has a little bit to do with the rapid transit subway line along Sheppard Avenue, and members can look forward to that during petitions.

As well, I would like to introduce Dr. Cheng Yu-Tung, who is in our members' gallery today. Dr. Cheng is currently the chairman and managing director of both publicly listed New World Development Co. Ltd., a major property holding and developing company in Hong Kong, and Chow Tai Fook Enterprises Ltd. He is also a director of the Hang Seng Bank Ltd., a member of the Hong Kong and Chinese banking corporations.

He is here to receive a doctorate in law from the University of Toronto. We offer him our congratulations and introduce him to the assembly.

GAME AND FISH ACT

Mr. Bernier: I would like to make a few comments about our uncaring Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). On December 2, 1986, the minister introduced Bill 166,

An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act. At that time, the minister stated that forward-looking legislation was needed to assist Ontario's wildlife and fisheries resources management and regulation.

Although we on this side of the House were concerned about certain sections of this bill, we looked forward to its debate. Various interest groups concerned about this bill also anticipated its debate. But what happened with Bill 166? Nothing. It was dropped off Order and Notices at the end of the last session, it has not been reintroduced this session, and the minister has not commented on its disappearance.

As such, if the minister does indeed care about the problems of wildlife and fisheries resources, he should show some leadership, direction and action by bringing back Bill 166 and its relevant amendments for debate in the House.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

DISASTER RELIEF

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Last May, I promised a major review of the Ontario disaster relief assistance program. The intent was to see if we could make it better.

Mr. Speaker: Order. One member said other members have not received a copy. Is that correct? I understand it will there in a moment. We might just wait.

The members have now received copies. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Last May, I promised a major review of the Ontario disaster relief assistance program. The intent was to see if we could make it better. The review was conducted during the spring and summer months. Input was sought from previous local disaster relief committee members, claimants, fund-raisers, adjusters, insurance representatives, municipal officials and ministry staff. That review indicated that the program was generally well accepted but required some changes.

Aujourd'hui, j'ai le plaisir de vous annoncer qu'en nous inspirant de cette étude, nous avons apporté certaines modifications aux directives portant sur le programme de secours aux sinistrés de l'Ontario.

Les directives actuelles prévoient une assistance aux personnes qu'un sinistre placerait dans une situation financière très difficile.

The dollar-to-dollar matching formula will initially apply in all cases. The province will subsequently consider a higher matching formula only in those instances where damages are extremely severe or if the community's resources are limited. Another change will allow the local committee to make an agreement with a co-ordinating agency to undertake certain administrative functions, such as issuing receipts. The agency will be reimbursed by the ministry from the disaster relief fund.

Les nouvelles directives prévoient également que les comités désireux d'engager un évaluateur doivent le faire par appel d'offre public ou après avoir obtenu au moins trois soumissions écrites.

Le ministère élaborera un manuel de procédures pour aider les comtés locaux de secours aux sinistrés à faire face à des questions telles que l'indemnisation et les appels dans les cas de difficultés financières extrêmes.

These are just some of the major changes. Copies of the guidelines being tabled here today will be sent to all municipalities and are also available from the ministry. I believe that these changes will help to make the program operate more efficiently.

RESPONSES

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. McCague: I thank the minister for the guidelines that he has produced or had produced for him.

As he well knows, the area I represent in the province, as was Barrie, was badly hit a couple of years ago. I know there are still some unresolved matters in that particular case. They may be resolved to the satisfaction of the minister and the ministry, but there are people who thought they were going to get assistance through the Ministry of Natural Resources or through conservation authorities with the money being forwarded to them by the government. Those things still are not looked after to the satisfaction of quite a few of the people I represent.

The minister will be well aware that in the last tornado disaster, the government was not required to put up a dollar for a dollar. The contributions received from citizens of the province were greater than the amount that was necessary for the government to put forward. I have not had time to read this, having just received it, but I hope those matters are addressed in this report. I hope we do not have any more disasters, but if we do, that we do have a formula to go by.

I know that many people volunteered not only their money and time, but those who were on the disaster relief committee spent many hours, weeks and months without any compensation. It was a tremendous job that demanded a lot of one sort of putting one's neck on the line. That has been pointed out to the minister by several people who were involved. I would hope there is some way to compensate them or to take away from them some of the burden of the aftermath that may well happen in some cases and at some time.

However, we do welcome the guidelines and hope they do address all of these problems.

Mr. Brandt: On the same topic, I would like to simply indicate to the minister that although we welcome the comments he has made today in his release, the types of disasters that are covered are not clearly outlined in his announcement.

From my discussions with municipalities, the problem they face is that they are not clear on what the government feels is the type of program it will respond to in a co-operative way where it will match funds using the dollar-for-dollar formula the minister has outlined in his statement today.

Some of the disasters my colleague commented on, those that occurred in Barrie as an example, are one type of disaster which could be compensated for in the minister's type of program, but there are many others, such as shoreline relief, that may also require a response on the part of his ministry.

The general feeling among municipalities is that the guidelines that have been in place -- and I would hope they would be clearer and more specific in the future -- the current guidelines are too strict and too complicated. It is very difficult to find out when one qualifies for government assistance when a disaster strikes. As we all know, under those circumstances and in those situations, the communities have to respond very quickly, because private and public properties are affected. They have to have a mechanism by which they can move forward immediately to undertake whatever remedial action is absolutely necessary.

The minister has not mentioned the amount of money that may be possible in this program -- and I recognize that has to be flexible, because one cannot forecast when a disaster is going to occur -- but I would think some money in one line of the budget would be realistic, based on previous experience, so that the minister would have some funds available from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to move on very quickly in a situation like this.

I would ask the minister in his review of this program and in the positive steps that he is trying to take -- and I compliment him for that -- to look at making the guidelines very understandable and remove some of the strictness from the guidelines that has caused complications and confusion in the past.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to just briefly touch on some of my concerns. I welcome the tabling of the report today. It does raise some questions in my mind about a mass of guidelines, manuals and procedures, when in effect we need something just a little more direct than that. I view the problems we have run into with the disaster relief assistance program as being ones that are identifiable and ones that we can resolve; and we should, of course, resolve them now, when we are not in the midst of any great controversy over a disaster.

Let me specifically run through my concerns. I am concerned that there is a definition of a disaster, which I believe is almost impossible to do. There is no difference in my mind between a tornado which hits part of central Ontario and a flooding problem which hits somewhere along the shores of Lake Ontario. Ontario has traditionally made distinctions between those two problems, and I do not think the distinctions are real to the people who are hit by those disasters. They certainly exist in a bureaucrat's mind, they certainly can exist in a set of guidelines, but they do not exist to those people who are impacted by these disasters.

Second, though I recognize that there is always going to be a need for basic guidelines as to what is and is not covered, I want to point out to the minister that in Barrie and other places where disasters have struck, the guidelines have caused immense misery to people. They have not served the population well, so I urge the minister to make whatever guidelines he feels are necessary as clear and as precise as possible.

I am a little bit concerned that we are retaining what is, I suppose, generally looked upon with favour as a dollar-for-dollar provision. The problem is that in many of our communities -- I particularly think of Winisk in northern Ontario -- the capacity to do fund-raising locally is extremely limited. In that instance a dollar-for-dollar formula, which I understand was not used, was demonstrated as not one which is well-suited to many parts of Ontario.

If you go into rural Ontario, the capacity for raising money locally is certainly substantially different than it would be in a large urban centre, where you could do huge television marathons and things of that nature. I would like the minister to reassess whether that funding formula is a fair and equitable one.

I notice one of the recommendations is to hire a media consultant, I believe the term is, to go and work locally and to hire adjudicators by tender. I would simply put this caution to the minister. Although it might normally be desirable to hire adjudicators by tender, in a disaster you need a fast response to a local problem. In that instance, there might be another way that could be explored that would provide people who have been hit by a disaster with the money they need immediately, as opposed to waiting around in almost a private insurance model.

Finally, I have not had a chance to go through all the assessment that is in the report, but I do know this and I want to get it on the record: many of our municipalities in the midst of this kind of disaster have faced substantial setbacks, for example, in terms of massive roadbuilding campaigns that have to be undertaken immediately. Before one can talk about redeveloping a subdivision, somebody has to put in place water and sewer lines, transportation facilities and hydro lines.

All that has to happen very quickly or any kind of relief program that might assist people to get back into their homes is not going to work. In many cases, and I think Barrie is an example, there were other municipally owned and operated facilities that were affected by the disaster.

That is all an argument for saying that the dollar-for-dollar stuff has to be looked at in a somewhat different light, that one has to be able to have a little more flexibility than might be suggested by these recommendations, to take into consideration, for example, the need of a municipality to provide some perhaps very expensive services in a very short period of time and the need to respond needs to be done there.

One final note, and this will be unpleasant, I am sure. It does not say it in here but we have had some discussion in the House of a rather acrimonious nature when a disaster occurs that somebody is attempting to take political advantage by means of responding to a disaster in some area. When the minister responds, I urge him to make as much consideration as he can to totally depoliticizing that process. I think he would find members on all sides very co-operative in this regard if they were simply asked to do that and I urge him when he responds to this report to take that into very serious consideration.

RECORD OF DEBATES

Ms. Fish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise to seek your guidance on a matter that I consider to be extremely serious. I believe you and, I hope, all members of this assembly would agree that it is absolutely essential that our Hansard be accurate, independent and objective in recording the actual debate that occurs in this House. On June 8, 1987, I believe that Hansard may have been tampered with to the extent of substantially altering the record of debate in this assembly, with the result of altering the meaning and intent of the actual words used in exchange.

The printed Hansard of June 8, 1987, under page 1147, quotes the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as follows, "Quebec has always been concerned, being the only island of francophones in North America, about being washed over by a massive movement of immigration into that province."

The Instant Hansard of that same date, and indeed the electronic Hansard clearly showed the Premier saying -- Instant Hansard, on page L-1415-1-made reference to, "Quebec has always been concerned, being the only island of francophones in North America, about being washed over by a massive movement of immigration into that country."

I believe that the differences between "country" and "province" are substantial. They are not issues of a grammatical correction. The difference between Instant and electronic Hansard and printed Hansard raise in my mind the very serious question of the independent and accurate reporting by Hansard of debate in this House having been tampered with. I ask you to look into this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member brings up a point that I certainly will look at and report back on at the appropriate time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Obviously a corrected mistake.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will certainly take a look at it and report back.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Premier. In the Meech Lake accord, he signed a document that "guarantees" Quebec will receive, in essence. 25 per cent of the immigration to Canada. He has attempted to resolve some of our concerns here by suggesting that family reunification will not be impeded.

I wonder, just to clarify his position by way of explaining that we should not be concerned, if he could tell us, for example, if a 30-year-old or 35-year-old landed immigrant wished to bring, say, his 55-year-old parents to Canada, whether they would be allowed in under the family reunification program that he so often speaks of.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure of the particular facts of the situation the member is talking about, but in my understanding, if it qualified under the family reunification program, and I do not know if the member's particular example would or not, then it very clearly would not be affected by it.

Mr. Grossman: The point I wish to make is that family reunification will be greatly impacted, and stopped in some cases, by the Meech Lake accord, as we read the guarantee. That is because if a 35-year-old landed immigrant wished to sponsor his 55-year-old parents, that family reunification is not exempted from the accord. It does not qualify under the family reunification program. If he wished to sponsor his 17-year-old sister or 24-year-old brother and wife, they would not be exempted from the impact of Meech Lake by the family reunification program.

Therefore, my question to the Premier is this: given the fact that family reunification is not exempted from the Meech Lake accord, would he explain once again how a guarantee of 25 per cent of the immigration coming to Canada will not stop family reunification in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It may be complicated for the honourable member opposite. I am not sure it is that complicated at all. Family reunification, under the existing rules, is not affected. It only applies to independent immigrants, which, as I understand it, happens to pertain to only about 25 per cent of the immigrants who come to this country. I could be wrong on that figure, but I think it is in that range. Family reunification is not subject to these targets and will carry on in the future as it did in the past. Anyone who is eligible under the current rules will be eligible with no changes on that, under any potential changes that may come about contractually under the Constitution.

Mr. Grossman: That is precisely the case because only those qualifying under the current family reunification program are protected against the accord which the Premier signed.

But if, for example, a family wishes to reunite, a 35-year-old landed immigrant with his or her 55-year-old parents from, say, Portugal or Hong Kong, that reunification could well be stopped by the reality that the Premier has guaranteed -- the Premier can shake his head as much as he wants, but until he has the knowledge to stand up in this House and say categorically that Meech Lake does not guarantee Quebec 25 per cent of the population and that will not divert some immigration which otherwise might have come from non-French-speaking countries, then the fact is that family reunification will be stopped.

Therefore, is it the Premier's position that the Meech Lake accord guarantee will have no impact whatsoever on current immigration flows and family reunification for a 35-year-old landed immigrant and his 55-year-old parents?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is trying to beat this subject to death. I think he would want to have some serious discussions with people who are knowledgeable on this matter. I can easily arrange for a briefing for him, from federal immigration officials or from constitutional experts, if he has a particular problem, but I say to my friend opposite that it is not going to affect family reunification as it exists under the present situation. It only applies to independent immigrants.

I know the member would not want to leave the impression that any increase in Quebec's target is going to come at the expense of any other part of the country, because that is not the case. Look at the federal targets over the next five years and the member will see they are dramatically increasing. As I said, it only applies to independent immigrants.

I know my honourable friend may have some problem understanding it personally or he may have some information he is trying to put out that is not accurate. I think in the interest of fairness to his Prime Minister, whom the member praised so fulsomely in Ottawa last week for his great courage in getting everybody to the bargaining table and making a deal at Meech Lake, the member would want to check his facts before he accidentally propounds some theory that is not correct.

Mr. Grossman: He is Ontario's Premier