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

May 26, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L069 - Thu 26 May 1988 / Jeu 26 mai 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

TRADE WITH SOUTH AFRICA

GREENWOOD RACEWAY ACT

TRADE WITH SOUTH AFRICA

GREENWOOD RACEWAY ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

HAROLD G. SHIPP

PETER LAING

SCHOOL FUNDING

HOUSING SUPPLY

PURCHASE OF SUBMARINES

OSHAWA SPORTS HALL OF FAME

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO-OMAN EDUCATION AGREEMENT

RESPONSES

ONTARIO-OMAN EDUCATION AGREEMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

MINISTRY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

TRANSMISSION LINES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

VISITOR

HOSPITAL SERVICES

SOCIAL SERVICES

COMMERCIAL CEMETERIES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

MOTION

STANDING ORDERS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DEAF PERSONS’ RIGHTS ACT

INCORPORATED SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF HURON ACT

VIC JOHNSTON COMMUNITY CENTRE INC. ACT

OWEN SOUND YOUNG MEN’S AND YOUNG WOMEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND ACT (CONTINUED) /

LOI SUR LE FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO (SUITE)

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

SUPPLY ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

TRADE WITH SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. Velshi moved resolution 31:

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Velshi has moved the private resolution standing in his name. The honourable member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for his windup.

Mr. Velshi: Today, May 26, coincidentally is the 40th anniversary of the coming to power of the Nationalist Party of Dr. Daniel Malan in South Africa. While one third of South Africans celebrate this day, two thirds of South Africans, 3,000 of whom are in South African jails, go into mourning. For them, 40 years ago today spelt the death knell of democracy in that wonderful country because the Nationalist Party, dominated by the Afrikaner, finally came to power on a platform that promised its white-only electorate a unique concept of apartheid, meaning equal but separate development of different races in South Africa.

I also mourn this day. It is a sad day for me personally, for South Africa is the country of my birth and where I spent the first 25 years of my life -- a country where today tragedy is a way of life, a country in turmoil where hatred, violence and death is the order of the day.

As a member of this Legislature addressing other elected members as I am now doing is something I could never have hoped to do in South Africa, the country of my birth, being of nonwhite origin.

We read of South Africa almost every day and we see it on TV, yet most of us do not understand or care about the great tragedy unfolding before our very eyes. We see the foes of apartheid being shot at, yet we choose to believe the racist government is easing up on apartheid. We are told that blacks in South Africa are better off than they are in other parts of Africa, and we choose to believe that a rich black man without freedom is better than a poor black man who is free.

When foes of apartheid are jailed, we choose to believe that the South African government is protecting western democracy from communism. When seven-year-old children are snatched from the schools or from the streets and jailed without trial, we choose to believe that the racist government is fighting terrorism.

When blacks are forcibly removed from urban centres, where they were born and have lived all their lives and sent to black homelands where there are no industries, no jobs and land that cannot be farmed, we choose to believe that this is equal coexistence in their own homeland as promised by the racist regime.

When Bishop Tutu advocates an economic boycott of South Africa, we choose to believe that sanctions will hurt the blacks the most and that they will be the ones to suffer the most. We choose to ignore the fact that the black man in South Africa is suffering already, and it has been that way for most part of the century.

We are also told that South Africa is divided into two distinct groups -- whites versus nonwhites -- and we choose to believe that, but nothing is further from the truth. There are thousands upon thousands of whites in South Africa who oppose apartheid. Many openly oppose it but many fear saying so openly for fear of reprisals.

The South African government has mastered the art of deception and disinformation. Many people all over the world therefore are confused about what is really happening there and argue against pressure being put on the South African regime to change. We say: “Who would want to hurt the blacks? Why interfere in an internal matter? Give them time to solve their own problems. They understand it best.”

Some say “We oppose an economic boycott,” yet they refuse to offer any other solution to the problem. We have done nothing for the last 40 years, yet the situation has not eased. In fact, it has gone from bad to worse. Today, over 30,000 South Africans, mostly black, 10,000 of whom are children under 18 years old, ranging in age from 7 to 18 years, are in jail without reason, without trial, without having committed any criminal offence. The Sharpeville Six -- six blacks on the death row -- are awaiting execution for a murder that their own judge admitted they did not commit, yet we are content to do nothing.

What are we waiting for? The last time we did nothing, it resulted in the Holocaust. Now, 40 years later and with hindsight, we feel we should have done something then. Let us help prevent this evil system from creating another Holocaust which has already started.

Having lived in South Africa for 25 years, I would like to give the members of this House an insight from personal experience into what really goes on there.

After 1948, a system of passive resistance started among the nonwhites. The idea was to fill up the jails of South Africa so that the world media could inform the rest of the world what was happening and how oppressive the regime was getting in South Africa.

The system was quite simple. Any South African government-owned building had two entrances, one for whites and one for nonwhites. To break this law was quite simple. A group of people would get together, phone the police and say, “Tonight, we are breaking the law by entering the Pretoria railway station.” The whites in the group would enter through the nonwhite entrance and break the law, and the nonwhites would enter through the white entrance and break the law. They would all get into the railway station and all of them would get arrested by the police.

It is a laughing matter, but it is very serious when you think of it. The next day they would be taken to court and fined £5 or seven days in jail and they would choose to go to jail, the idea being to fill up the jails of South Africa. This was the Mahatma Gandhi system of passive resistance and nonviolence.

When one had to go to the city to shop, as we would in downtown Toronto, there would be washroom facilities for whites. There would be no washroom facilities for nonwhites. This, of course, created a problem in terms of timing and restraint. If you had to go shopping and you knew that two hours from now you had to visit a washroom, then you would make sure you were home within two hours, because there were no other facilities around for one to use.

Again, this sounds very funny. There is a play in Toronto now at the Toronto Workshop Theatre called Bopha. It is a group of three black South Africans. I urge members to go and see that play. It is comic, it is tragic, but it is true. It indicates exactly what is happening, even today. There is very little difference between 25 years ago and now.

We sometimes read in the Toronto papers that a certain area of a large city has been cleared and they call it slum clearance. But it was not slum clearance. When they wanted to confiscate properties belonging to a certain group of people who were not white, they confiscated them under the guise of slum clearance and razed them. They were properties belonging to people like me and my mother and we have lost properties that way.

My family had a bakery business in South Africa. It was the 11th-largest bakery in South Africa. The funny situation is that the whites would not eat bread baked by our bakery. The blacks were the bread-eaters and 99 per cent of our clientele was from the black population.

The blacks were moved into residential areas that were then circled by a barbed wire and a fence. This is a common procedure in South Africa. Anybody wanting to get into the black areas would need permits. Everybody was given a permit for a year and they went in and out doing their business, as any business would want. Ours being a nonwhite business, our permits were reduced from one year to six months, then to three months, then to a month and, eventually, we had to get our permit every day to enter for the day.

The sad part of this was that a bakery has to sell its bread by six o’clock in the morning so that people can have their bread at the breakfast table. But the office of the superintendent looking after those locations, as they were called, did not come in until nine. So we could never get into the locations to sell our bread until nine o’clock, when it was too late. This was economic strangulation. We say we should not do the same thing to South Africa, but they have practised it for a number of years.

When my father finally decided to leave South Africa -- he was due to leave on a particular day; I do not remember the day now, it is something that is blanked out of my memory -- he died of a massive heart attack. The doctors said it was a heart attack. I still maintain it was more heartbreak than heart attack, at having lived there all his life and having to move because of economic strangulation that was done to us by the government in power.

We talk about the rich, middle-class, black population that is developing in South Africa today. There is a middle-class black. The government of South Africa states that this black middle-class is not opposing the South African government of apartheid. That is true. They are not opposing it. You will never hear a black businessman in South Africa making such a statement for the simple reason that licences to trade by the black business people are issued annually, and anyone making such a statement would not get his licence renewed the following year. So they are out of the way in that manner.

We saw this week the first political assassination in South Africa, in Cape Town. This has never happened before in South Africa, although politicians have been killed for reasons other than political. I think we are going to see more of it happening in South Africa.

Another funny, tragic part of South Africa is that last year 918 people bid to be reclassified by racial groups. A total of 900 people applied last year to be reclassified from one racial group to another under South Africa’s race classification laws. This was revealed in Parliament yesterday.

The population registration not only lists every South African as a member of one of four official racial groups -- white, black, Asian and mixed -- but divides them into further subgroups. Tests of descent, appearance and general acceptance are used to determine an individual’s race. Mr. Botha said one white had become a Cape Coloured, 69 Cape Coloureds had become white, five Malays had become white, three Indians had become Cape Coloureds, two Cape Coloureds had become Indians and one Malay had become Indian. In addition, 113 blacks had become Cape Coloureds, one black had become a Griqua and one Cape Coloured had become a Malay.

Among unsuccessful applicants were four Cape Coloureds who wanted to become Chinese, nine Indians who wanted to become Malays and three blacks who wanted to be other Asians. Malays, Griquas and Cape Coloureds are subgroups of the mixed race group, while Indians, Chinese and other Asians are subgroups of the Asiatic group.

It is complicated, it sounds funny, but this is true, because when a Chinese is married to a black woman or vice versa, they cannot live together unless they are both classified as part of the same group, because they have different areas in which to live. This breaks up families. If the government does not allow them to be reclassified, it just breaks up the family and that is the end of that family unit.

Pretoria stifles dissent. Last year we heard about Pretoria stifling dissent. The new law published Friday and enacted overnight by police could see a sweeping effect. It forbids people from signing petitions calling for the release of a person in detention; prohibits anyone from encouraging people to phone, write or send telegrams to the government demanding the release of a detainee; bans the wearing of stickers or any

article of clothing that carries a slogan protesting or disapproving of detention without trial; forbids people to attend gatherings held in protest against detention without trial or to honour a detainee; and bans the performance of any act which is a symbolic token of solidarity with, or in honour of, detainees.

Bishop Tutu, the titular head of the Anglican church in South Africa, after pleading with the South African authorities in vain, has finally decided to ask for an economic boycott of South Africa. Those who say that the racist regime in South Africa is slowly moving towards easing apartheid are wrong. Every day we see more arrests, more violence, more detentions, more torture and more deaths. By my reckoning, things are getting worse, not better.

Besides, Bishop Tutu has said: “We do not want apartheid made easy. We do not want the chains around our necks made any more comfortable. We want them removed now.”

But everything in South Africa is not black or white. There are many whites in South Africa who oppose apartheid. Some have spoken out. The majority are afraid to speak out against the racist regime for fear of reprisals. There are also other whites who are genuinely scared that equality in South Africa will mean an end to the white culture as they know it.

Let us in Ontario send a message to them. “We know your fears,” let’s tell them, “but they are not justified.” Let’s tell them that they can live amicably with each other as we in Ontario do. Let us, as Canadians, send a message of hope to them, “Let us be your role model because we are doing it here and so can you.”

Let us tell them to talk to the nonwhite moderate leaders who are around such as Bishop Tutu, Rev. Boesak and Nelson Mandela. Failure to negotiate now with these moderate leaders will lead to more bloodshed and eventually there will be no moderate black leadership left for them to talk to.

I ask for the support of all members of this Legislature in the hope that in our own little small way we can prevent another Holocaust.

Mr. B. Rae: I congratulate the member for Don Mills for his eloquence today. I can only say that if the thrust of my argument is critical, not necessarily of him but of this government, it is because, prior to his coming here, my party and I raised for a number of years the question of Ontario’s participation in apartheid and what we could do.

I will say to him that my great disappointment in his resolution and indeed in his speech is that he does not, in a sense, reflect at all on what Ontario is doing, should be doing and could be doing. All the obligation does not simply fall on the federal government. I could say to him that in some instances the federal government in fact is doing more than the provincial government with respect to its investment policies on companies that do business with South Africa. Frankly, the member should look hard at the information which is now publicly available with respect to what the government of Ontario has decided not to do.

In particular, I would like to say this: I share, and our party shares, the member’s abhorrence and opposition to apartheid. I congratulate him for the eloquence of his speech and for the sincerity with which he has spoken. I think it is a truism that speeches that are spoken from experience are always the most real. Certainly, what the member had to say today was very real and very moving for all of us who were listening to it.

I want to say, though, that in September 1986 this cabinet considered a submission, of which I have obtained a copy, with respect to its policy on South Africa.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Do you get them all now?

Mr. B. Rae: I get them all now. For some reason -- I do not know why -- they seem to come across my desk.

This is a very interesting document because it refers to all the options available to the cabinet. It contains information about the level of investment in South Africa by companies that do business with the government of Ontario. It sets out various options the government of Ontario could follow if it were interested in having a policy on South Africa.

I can tell the honourable member that the basic options considered by cabinet were these: They could either do nothing, or they could have a policy that allowed divestment to occur in certain trusts and other pension funds, which I will come to in a moment, or they could make divestment mandatory. Just to talk about another question, they could have a policy which said, “We will not do business with companies that do business with South Africa,” or they could have a policy which said, “We will not purchase goods which originate from South Africa.” There is a range of options.

I think it would be an education for the member to look at this document and see what his colleagues in the Liberal Party decided to do, because what his colleagues in the Liberal Party decided to do at each and every step of the way was to take the soft option. It was to take the option that would require the least intervention by the government of Ontario and that would lead to the least inconvenience for the government of Ontario and for the population of Ontario.

If I may say so, on one hand the government of Ontario was inviting Bishop Tutu to address this assembly -- which is a moment I shall never forget and I know everyone who was here will never forget -- and it was doing that in terms of a major public gesture, while on the other hand it was considering options and deciding to ignore the advice of Bishop Tutu when it came to the question of a boycott, and instead to follow policies that were far softer, easier and milder than the ones recommended by Bishop Tutu.

I say to the honourable member -- with the greatest of respect, as they say -- that I think it would have been a good idea if he had informed himself of that policy discussion which took place in cabinet. In his resolution, which of course we will be supporting and I know others will be supporting, it might have been a good idea if he had called upon the government of Ontario to do some things and not simply taken the slightly easier route politically for a member of the Liberal Party in this province, which is to say it is the federal government’s responsibility to do everything. It is not; it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to do something.

Let me deal with the question of pension plan investments. According to the cabinet document, the Ontario municipal employees retirement system has an estimated $420-million worth of investments in South Africa, in the sense that it has investments in companies that do business in South Africa and the estimated South African content of that corporate investment is $420 million.

The Ontario Hydro pension plan had an estimated South African content in its corporate investments in 1984-85 of $290 million. The hospitals of Ontario pension plan has $157 million of South African content. The Workers’ Compensation Board pension plan has $17-million worth of South African content in its corporate investments.

The employees in these plans have all objected to these investments and have called upon the plans to divest themselves. The Ontario government representatives on those boards have refused to go along with a policy of corporate divestment. Let it be on the record that when we challenged the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in this House to say, “Are you going to issue a directive?” he said, “Well, it is up to the trustees to decide what they want to do.”

The only thing this government has done is, not to pass legislation, not to see that it gets through the House, but to have the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) have legislation that has been waiting for this government to take action on for two years from the time it was considered. That is Bill 9; we are still waiting for Bill 9 to be called by this government. They have been sitting on it for two years. It is the least possible thing they could do -- permit trustees to divest themselves -- and even that has not been done.

I say to the honourable member that when it comes to the question of what Ontario’s procurement policy should be, it is true to say that a directive has been issued which states that the government of Ontario will not purchase goods directly from South Africa, but it is also important to note that this was not the only choice available to the government. It was possible for the government of Ontario to say, “We will not do business with companies that are doing extensive business in South Africa.” They have rejected that option.

I might say that on the questions of divestment and procurement, there are state governments in the United States which are far more progressive than the government of Ontario when it comes to its policies, far clearer in terms of what they expect companies that do business with them to have in place as policies and practices when they deal internationally. Time and again, this government has rejected that approach.

This government purchases goods to the value of literally tens of millions of dollars from companies that do an extensive business in South Africa. Obviously, the government considered the option of whether or not it would consider banning those purchases or consider a different kind of procurement policy, and what did it say?

“It is not unreasonable to surmise that a ban by the province of these companies’ products would generate some financial difficulties for them, at least in their Canadian domestic sales operations. The internationally rationalized nature of these companies’ operations means that the ban on Ontario government procurements may not necessarily affect goods produced in Canada, but there would likely still be an economic impact on Canadian operations. As well, there could be direct costs to the government associated with such a ban in attempting to find substitute goods and suppliers.”

It might hurt the companies and it might hurt the government.

So what does the government say? “Well, let’s not do that option. Let’s invite Bishop Tutu to speak to us. That’s not going to cost us anything. Let’s have him come in here and give a very eloquent speech on apartheid. That won’t inflict any pain on anybody. It will provide an inspiration for the people of this Legislature and the people of the province. Let’s do that, but let’s not get into the business of a real economic boycott.”

I welcome the opportunity to debate this. I think it is a very important question. It is one my party and I have raised in this House on a number of occasions. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate.

My only comment to the member, if I may borrow an expression, would be let us look to our own house. Let us look to what we could be doing here in Ontario. Let us look to what we could be doing ourselves and accept the fact that, yes, there may be some pain and some cost involved, but if we are serious about a boycott, that is what a boycott means. Let’s not pretend it does not mean that. Let’s face up to the fact that this is what it means, and frankly, let’s do it.

Mr. Runciman: At the outset, I want to make it clear that members of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party find the South African apartheid system of government abhorrent and I have no doubt that pressure from the outside world can greatly assist in bringing about positive changes in that troubled country.

We all know it is relatively easy for members to pontificate about the sins of the South African government. They are quite well known and the member sponsoring this resolution has some added credibility in that regard, having lived in South Africa for a number of years. However, I am not going to take the easy way out. I am going to talk about something different, something that is usually missing from debates and discussions on South Africa, and that is moral hypocrisy.

Members may recall that some months ago I asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) about his government’s trade with Chile. I asked this shortly after the Premier had wined and dined the Chilean consul at Queen’s Park and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario had announced significant additional imports of Chilean wines.

Chile, as some members may be aware, is not exactly the Mecca of democracy. Amnesty International’s 1987 report on Chile detailed extensive short-term arbitrary arrests, torture and human rights violations by security forces in the arrests of government critics. Between 1973 and 1977, approximately 700 political prisoners had disappeared following their arrests.

A specific example of what is happening in Chile described in the report is the case of two teenagers, Rodrigo Rohas and Carmen Quintana. These two young people were arrested by a military patrol during a work stoppage protest. They were beaten, doused in inflammable liquid and set on fire. Rohas died, but Quintana survived and we have seen her on US television campaigning against the Pinochet regime.

That is the kind of thing that is occurring in Chile, and based on the Premier’s self-confessed concern about human rights in his ban on South African wines, I felt it was appropriate to ask him about his cozying up to the Chilean consul and the increased importation of Chilean wines.

What was the Premier’s response to my question? Well, he implied that I was a bigot for being opposed to this province being declared officially bilingual. That is right. This deep thinker of a Premier we are saddled with equated police torture chambers with the right to get a speeding ticket written in French. Thomson News Service’s Queen’s Park columnist, Derek Nelson, described the Premier’s equating of murder and torture with one’s opposition to official bilingualism as “the shallowest kind of thinking.”

Of course, Chile is not the only country Ontario does business with that has human rights records as bad or worse than South Africa. Bulgaria and the Soviet Union immediately jump to mind. But the Premier chooses to ignore this and concentrate his government’s moral indignation solely on the high-profile sins of the South African government.

No doubt that is politically trendy and popular with a great many people, but if the Premier and his ragtag squad are genuinely concerned about human rights, why are they not acting with consistent morality in their dealings with their business partners? This sort of moral hypocrisy or selective indignation extends beyond the cabinet benches, and as we have all read, into the back benches of the current government.

The sponsor of this resolution, a man whom I very much like, apparently lives in a glass house when it comes to this issue. Obviously, as the press details of his travel agency business unfold, he should not be throwing stones.

A number of years ago, I chaired what was then called the select committee on the Ombudsman and I tabled in this House a special report dealing with human rights. The committee recommended a method by which this assembly could act to make its voice heard against political killings, imprisonment, terror and torture in a consistent manner. The committee wanted to do away with the hollow posturing and pious, ineffective words, and instead do something to provide tangible improvement in the lot of persons whose human and political rights are being trampled. Regrettably, neither the former government nor the current government has seen fit to deal with that report.

In conclusion, I call upon the government, if it really, genuinely, seriously and sincerely cares about human rights, to bring forward that select committee report for debate and subsequent adoption. Let’s do something meaningful about human rights violations. Let’s apply our policies in a consistent manner with all of our trading partners and hopefully put an end to the moral hypocrisy and selective indignation so common in debates of this kind.

Some people, including apparently one person in this House, ask, “Why single out South Africa for criticism and a trade ban?” Other countries that trade with Canada have undemocratic and repressive regimes that all of us in this Legislature abhor. Some of these other governments are communist and some are right-wing dictatorships; their ideologies vary. But there is a unique quality to the pervasive system of repression in South Africa. No other government in the world discriminates so exclusively, so extensively and so ruthlessly, solely on the basis of race.

All women and all men of all races are born with equal elements of the human spirit, with equal claim to freedom of expression and activity. The denial of that basic human equality by South Africa is morally repugnant to virtually all Canadians.

Not only that, but other governments throughout the world, of all different types, democratic and even the deplorable regimes, even those ones, are united in condemning apartheid. If anyone ever doubted the dirty and heartless nature of apartheid, surely that doubt was dispelled by events in the last two years. The South African government has declared war on children. Schools have been fenced off and are patrolled by police and army troops. Schools have restricted registration and registered pupils must wear special identity cards on their clothing. Could we be more shocked if they had to wear a yellow Star of David?

Children in the hundreds and even the thousands, children as young as eight years of age, have been arrested and detained without warning and held for up to several months without charges or explanations. There are numerous documented reports of children hurt and even killed by police action, some on the streets and some while in police custody.

I will now read two brief excerpts from a document prepared by the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights, based in New York City, dated December 1986. The first excerpt is an account from court documents of a child who was interrogated by a policeman.

“He” -- meaning the policeman -- “refused to believe me and accused me of lying. He then proceeded to squeeze my throat with both of his hands. He throttled me until I was about to collapse. He then released his grip. He thereafter seized my testicles and proceeded to slowly squeeze them. The pain I suffered was excruciating.” That was August 1986, a 14-year-old child.

This is the second one: “I was accused of burning two schools. I denied these accusations. As a result of this denial, I was assaulted. I was struck in the stomach and all over my body by the policemen, using their closed fists. This interrogation, interspersed with assaults, went on for about an hour.” That is another 14-year-old, also in August 1986. That description goes on at some greater length.

There are reports and newspaper stories with names and dates and places of endless incidents, all with this distressing detail.

Now we ask ourselves, and certainly this resolution poses the question: what nonviolent ways have we of sending a message to the people responsible for this deplorable state of affairs, namely, the South African government? Ultimately, the South African government can only function if it has the economic strength to operate.

To a significant degree, South Africa does rely on foreign trade. Late last year, I acquired some data on Canadian and South African trade. I discovered that both Ontario and Canada as a whole have a trade deficit with South Africa. That means we buy more from them than we sell.

In dollar terms, our trade is more important to South Africa than it is to us. In 1986, Ontario imported $256-million worth of South African goods, then representing some 69 per cent of the Canadian total. In the first half of 1987, this had dropped to only $16.2 million and it was down as a percentage of the Canadian total to approximately half what it had been a year before. This decrease is due to a number of measures, but one of the most important, admittedly largely a symbolic gesture, was the decision by the Ontario government not to continue to purchase goods, particularly food, from South Africa.

In 1986, in Ontario, we exported some $38.7 million worth of goods, about a quarter of Canada’s total. In the first half of 1987, that was down to some $15.4 million, a slight dropoff. In 1985, the last year for which I could find figures, some 27 Ontario companies had export agents in South Africa and another 41 Ontario companies have listed South Africa as a market that they serve.

Frankly, I take the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) at face value. I do not think that this -- and in fairness, I thought perhaps the last speaker who spoke was rather unfair to the member for Don Mills. This resolution is not intended to be a panacea for all things Canada or Ontario might do, but it is intended to move forward. One of the things I discovered in my research was that the most effective action in many ways can come in two respects. One is the attitude that we have towards South African goods, all of us as consumers; but also, in terms of legal jurisdiction, the power of the federal government is far more effective.

I think it is important that we keep in mind that for all the oppression that is a part of daily life in South Africa, people there still continue to struggle for justice. It is very important that we should help to put additional pressure on South Africa and its government and to send a message of hope to the opponents of apartheid. I urge all members to join with me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate and to congratulate the member for Don Mills on bringing this matter forward once again in the House. It has been raised by a number of members over the years, and I understand his sincere feeling for the situation in South Africa, a feeling I think is shared perhaps not with the intensity but certainly with the sincerity of the member by all other members of the House, no matter what their political stripe.

As Canadians, I think our hearts must cry out for the situation in South Africa. I agree with the speakers who have said that we should, as members of a democratically elected Legislative Assembly, abhor institutionalized violence and terror wherever it occurs throughout the globe.

I am sure that, as citizens of a democratic country, we have some difficulty in understanding with our democratic traditions the situation that occurs in so many parts of the world, where governments systematically use torture, arbitrary arrest and even murder to maintain the system that they believe is the best for their country. What is difficult for us to deal with, I think, is that there is a government that does genuinely believe, no matter how mistaken it is, that its system is the best, at least for some if not for all of the citizens of its country.

I congratulate the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) on his comments with regard to the war on the children in South Africa. I know that most of our pages are not here this morning, but I think it must be difficult for them, as it is for the rest of us, to understand that the leading force in opposing the South African regime is kids their age, children who have decided collectively that they have had enough. While their parents may be beaten down and unwilling or unable to maintain the struggle, they, in a sense, are forcing the rest of their community to reject a system which must be rejected.

Of course, that has brought violence down upon them. It has meant that sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers have children who have disappeared for months and years and they do not know where they are. It is not that they have just been arrested and that they are held in detention somewhere and their families can go and visit them, even if it is very seldom; in fact, they have disappeared.

It is a situation that all of us reject and must do all we can to help to resolve. But how can we, on the other side of the globe, help to resolve what is a very complex situation? All of us recognize that the apartheid regime is institutionalized racism. But it is too easy -- and I am sure the member for Don Mills would agree -- to say that we have on the one side the Caucasian community, the white community; and on the other side the black community, with the Asian community in alliance. It is not that simple. There are divisions within those communities. We cannot even say that we have the descendants of the Boers on one side; there are even divisions in that community.

Recently I saw demonstrations against Bishop Tutu, on his return from a speaking engagement in America, in which blacks participated and in which they said that if Bishop Tutu was successful in his campaign to persuade western democracies to boycott South African goods, that they, blacks, would lose their jobs.

We have seen Chief Buthelezi, who on one side seems to be rejecting the attempts to overthrow apartheid, but who on occasion says that he rejects certain aspects of the regime. We have seen some Asians who participate in what is essentially a powerless assembly which has been set up to which they can be elected, and others who reject the whole process.

We have seen the so-called liberal whites who have for years fought against the system through the electoral process and who seem to be losing ground. We see also the growth of what can only be called the fascist right, the extremely fascist right, who reject even the short-term, small steps that have been taken by the regime to “reform” the system.

It is very complex. How do we as people on the other side of the world respond to this system, a system that destroys people like Steve Biko, a system that imprisons people who are leaders of the revolutionary African National Congress for 20 and 30 years? How do we respond? It has been suggested in the resolution and in the debate that the way we respond is by following the demands of Bishop Tutu to institute a boycott of South African goods, and I support that.

I hope that in passing this resolution, it will not be just one more pious expression of opinion but will actually lead to government action; that we will in this province take leadership. I recognize, as has been said, that we cannot do it by ourselves, but that is no excuse for not taking action. We must be prepared to lead.

If we in this province can take action, we may persuade other provincial governments and the federal government of this country to boycott South African goods, which hopefully will lead to other western democracies taking similar action. I speak particularly of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, which are major trading partners with the South African regime.

I remind members of the comments of my leader. There are many things that could be done by this province and this government has not done them. In fact, it has rejected doing them. We cannot just have an expression of opinion, we must have action.

I just want to close by saying that sometimes in these kinds of debates, we are tempted to be self-congratulatory. We live in a democracy. We do not have a government that systematically abuses human and civil rights. But I am reminded again of my leader’s comments that we should look at our own house. While we do not have a majority of oppressed in this country, we do indeed have a significant minority who have not been able to exercise full rights in our democracy.

I speak of the native people of this country. I hope that in moving to deal with a system that we reject on the other side of the globe, we will be reminded that we must take action in our own country, in our own province, not only with regard to the South African regime, but also with regard to actually recognizing the rights of Indian people in this country and their right to self-government.

I hope that will encourage all of us to support human rights, political rights and civil rights, not only in the South African situation but throughout the world and in our own country.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Brampton.

Mr. Callahan: There is not much time left.

The Deputy Speaker: There is no time left. I am sorry. Then would the member for Don Mills make his response?

Mr. Velshi: I must say I am overwhelmed by the support I am getting, particularly from the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) whom I consider a good friend of mine. This mild rebuff I take very seriously, and I think it is something I will be looking into.

I agree, whether it is Chile or Ethiopia, once we start getting into the human rights thing, where do we stop? I do not think there is any stopping once we start. There are so many countries that we need to talk about, starting right here at home, as the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has mentioned. As far as they are concerned, they can consider me as part of, as an extension of their caucus for this particular purpose and I will look on them as part of my support system outside my own caucus to get moving on the human rights question in all countries.

One thing we have to bear in mind, whether we are talking about Chile, Ethiopia, Palestine, Russia, Bulgaria or many other countries, is that we are liable to get ourselves entangled. But once we talk about human rights, we have to put on our blinkers and say: “Human rights are human rights. It does not matter whom it affects and how it affects them, we are going to have to decide to fight for it.” Either we are for it or we are against it.

I do express my appreciation to all the speakers here. I feel my resolution will not have any problem getting through. I am just not too sure what to do once we do approve the resolution and where we move from there. Perhaps some advice from some of the older members in the Legislature will be helpful a little later.

GREENWOOD RACEWAY ACT

Ms. Bryden moved second reading of Bill 12,

An Act to ban Sunday racing and intertrack wagering at Greenwood Raceway and to change the composition and procedures of the Ontario Racing Commission.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make her presentation, of which she may reserve any time for the windup.

Ms. Bryden: I would like to reserve three minutes for the windup.

Through Bill 12, I am seeking provincial legislation to protect a large number of residents in my riding who are suffering what might be called community pollution. It results from the impact of seven-days-a-week racing activities at the Greenwood racetrack situated in a densely populated urban residential neighbourhood.

My bill does not restrict Sunday racing or racing activities at any other racetrack in Ontario. Greenwood Raceway is the only track in Ontario located in the midst of a large urban community and that is why it requires special legislation to guarantee the residents respite from racing activities on Sundays, when they want to have families and friends join them in their homes and want peace and quiet in the neighbourhood.

They did have race-free Sundays for over 100 years of racing activity at this racetrack, but the situation changed abruptly in October 1986 when the Ontario Racing Commission authorized Sunday racing without consulting the residents or even notifying them of the meeting at which the decision was made. At the same time, the Ontario Racing Commission increased racing and intertrack wagering days to 298 days in the year 1988, including every single Sunday except Christmas.

This decision by the Ontario Racing Commission indicates the need for action in the second area covered by my bill, which is to provide public input in the decision-making processes of the Ontario Racing Commission. Currently, the Ontario Racing Commission has no adequate procedures to advertise meetings or to hear submissions from people not directly involved in the horse-racing industry.

This flaw in the ORC’s mandate became quite apparent in the fall of 1986 when the ORC refused to listen to residents living in the vicinity of Greenwood Raceway prior to approving Sunday racing. Nor did the ORC pay any attention to the fact that the Toronto city council, a few days before the decision was made, unanimously expressed its displeasure with Sunday racing being authorized at Greenwood. Some of them referred to the fact that the Ontario Jockey Club had made a commitment not to introduce Sunday racing at Greenwood when it applied to Metro for the right to have Sunday racing at Woodbine. Apparently that commitment has disappeared and has not been honoured.

I and a group of residents challenged the ORC’s

interpretation of its mandate in court last spring. Unfortunately, the Ontario Divisional Court ruled that the ORC is not required to hold public hearings or to take into account the views of the neighbourhood residents when making decisions.

Consequently, the court ruling has left no other avenue open to us except by provincial legislation. Time and again, I have asked the Liberal government to honour its commitment to “open and accessible government,” which became an election slogan in 1987. I ask them to honour this commitment by changing the Ontario Racing Commission’s mandate to guarantee to the residents the democratic right to be heard.

However, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the ministers responsible for the ORC continually brushed aside my requests, insisting that it is not a matter of provincial concern. Let me quote the reply of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), who was the minister in charge of the racing commission at one time. He said, “The Ontario Racing Commission is structured to deal with racing matters.

Matters dealing with parking, noise and congestion in the streets are not in its jurisdiction.” He does not address the question of the democratic rights of the residents, and he is completely misinformed when he thinks that the parking, noise and congestion problems created by the racetrack can be dealt with by the municipal council.

The fact is that the municipal council does not have the power to limit the hours or days of racing. It does not have the power to ban Sunday racing, and, in effect, the only answer it can provide for the parking problems is either to build new streets where there is no space for new streets, new parking lots where there is no space for parking lots, or to put in a year-round tow-away zone.

That is what was done, reluctantly, with the residents’ consent, because there seemed no other option as to how to control the illegal parking that flowed into their area on all racing days and made it impossible for them or their friends to park. In some cases, they themselves became victims of the tow-away if they were the slightest bit off where the legal parking was allowed.

They have no other recourse except provincial legislation which would recognize their natural right to be heard and to have their concerns considered when the sharing of a joint neighbourhood is being considered by an industry and by a community. Surely, they both have some rights.

In the case of the Ontario Jockey Club, it seems to think its only right is to make as much money as it can out of the racetrack, regardless of the interests of the community.

It seems to me that putting the almighty dollar as the top priority for any industry in a community is not looking at the needs of the people who inhabit the community and who must have some regulation of their lifestyles and some control over their lifestyles and not just be at the mercy of a corporation whose only objective seems to be the bottom line.

My bill addresses the problem of adequate public input by requiring the CRC to advertise meetings and agendas and to hold full public hearings. It says the CRC must give consideration to submissions put before it by people residing within one kilometre of a racetrack. It also changes the composition of the CRC to include representation from the general public. Members may not be aware that this government-appointed commission at present is made up entirely of persons connected with the racing industry, plus Chairman Frank Drea, a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister.

As far back as 1981, the standing committee on procedural affairs examined the Ontario Racing Commission and pointed out, and I quote: “Your committee is of the opinion that a possible conflict of interest may now exist within the commission. At the same time, the committee recognizes that this situation is not limited to any particular agency, but can occur with respect to all Ontario agencies.”

It is no excuse to say that we should recognize a conflict of interest and then say that we are not doing anything about it because other agencies may have the same conflicts within them. This government came in in 1985 and again in 1987 with a pledge to bring open and democratic government to this province. In the case of the Ontario Racing Commission, it has continued the practices of the previous government in loading the commission only with people connected with the industry and it has done nothing to rectify the situation so that the citizens’ rights may be heard and their considerations dealt with in the decision-making process.

In fact, the Ontario Jockey Club pays literally no attention to the needs of the residents. They have occasionally invited the residents to sit down with them and voice their complaints, but in most cases all they offer is, “We will build additional parking spaces on the racetrack and that will solve your problems.” Of course, it does not, because most of the patrons who come to the racetrack look first for a free parking space on the neighbouring streets. Only when those are all filled up will they go into the paying places at the racetrack. So “more parking spaces” is simply a sop to the community, saying, “We are looking after your needs.”

They have also changed the entrances, which affects the traffic patterns for people, without consulting the people. It changes the streetcar stops and the bus services in the area without consulting the people, so their lives have been very gravely affected by the impact of this track. The greatest loss, of course, is of their free Sunday, the one day of respite from seven-days-a-week racing.

Over the past 35 years the proliferation of racing activity at Greenwood has been staggering. In 1952 the Ontario Jockey Club held only 28 days of racing and no racing on Sundays. By 1982 that had jumped to 219 days, again with no racing on Sunday. In 1988 Greenwood will operate 298 days of the year, including every Sunday except Christmas Day.

Such a growth in operations, especially with the advent of Sunday racing, has put this residential community under siege without any means of escape. The residents remain powerless to bring about some change. The city of Toronto does not have the power to ban Sunday racing, as I have said, or to regulate days and hours.

I also want to point out that it is not just the residents immediately in the vicinity, but it is all of my 39,000 voters in the riding, from one end of Queen Street to the other, who are affected. The businessmen are finding that their business is cut back because of lack of parking. The people who wish to access the other recreational and cultural facilities in the area are unable to reach them. The sailing community finds it difficult to get to the sailing clubs and the restaurants also find that business is affected. The tow-away zone has had to be extended to a large part of Queen Street.

I want to quote briefly the reaction of the manager of the McDonald’s restaurant close to the racetrack. In a letter to the Ontario Jockey Club he said, “A recent Ward 9 News

article reported that you denied Greenwood racetrack creates local parking problems. The story also said that neither you nor the police have received any complaints.

“Well, let me be the first. I took over this McDonald’s on March 1, 1987. On March 22 your season started and my lot was full from 11:30 a.m. until late afternoon when the track emptied. My employees had no place to park and I lost about $1,000 in sales because customers could not park in my lot.” So the businessmen are seriously affected as well.

I am urging all members of the Legislature to affirm their belief in open and democratic government by supporting the proposed changes in the Ontario Racing Commission, in its composition and procedures, in order to make it more democratic. I am urging all members to do this by voting for my bill. If it passes second reading, it will be a direction to the government to bring about these changes either by calling my bill for third reading or by bringing in a similar bill of its own. I think I will leave the rest of my time for rebuttal.

Mr. Runciman: I would like to contribute a few brief comments to this debate, this crusade by the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). Some have labelled it a vendetta rather than a crusade, a vendetta against the chairman of the Ontario Racing Commission, Frank Drea, a man who is from all reports doing an excellent job as chairman. That is not surprising, given his government experience and more important his political affiliation.

For the information of the House, the sponsor of this resolution has on two occasions taken her concerns to Divisional Court. She lost twice and was ordered to pay court costs. Through this bill, she is attempting to accomplish what she could not accomplish through the courts. We in this party will not be supporting the resolution and we share the view that passage of this bill would have serious consequences on investments, jobs and the welfare of thousands of Ontario residents, not only in the immediate area of Greenwood but throughout the whole province.

I would like to put a few things on the record briefly. I have a letter from a concerned resident of the province and I would like to quote some aspects of that letter into the record.

“Racehorse owners in Ontario must rely for purses solely on their share of the commission from each dollar bet. Because the takeout or commission has not kept pace with inflation, the Ontario government rebates a portion of its parimutuel tax, which has been earned by the horseman in the first place, to augment the purses at all Ontario racetracks, to keep racing alive and to assure the continuation of some 40,000 jobs in the racing industry. Almost 60 per cent of the total standardbred purse rebate accrued is generated on the Ontario Jockey Club and more than 50 per cent of this amount is distributed to other Ontario racetracks.

“Consequently, a stoppage of Sunday racing will cause irreparable financial damage to the owners of the best harness racehorses in the world and will, just as importantly, have a disastrous effect on horse owners who race at the other 19 racetracks in the province through the resultant drop in betting revenue at Greenwood. This will cause a loss of owners and a shortage of horses which could lead not only to a reduction in operations, but possibly to a complete closure of some racetracks in the province.

The curtailment or complete stoppage of racing would not only cause significant damage to an important industry, but job and revenue loss would have a very great social and economic impact right across the province.”

The second part of the member’s bill deals with the restructuring of the Ontario Racing Commission. Such action would be a retrograde step, as the present members of the Ontario Racing Commission are the most knowledgeable about the industry. In fact, the Ontario Racing Commission is admired by all other commissions in North America for being fair, innovative and progressive in its discussions. Actions of the commission in the past three years have been in the best interests of racing as well as in the best interests of the province.

Over the years, there seems to be a small group of persons near Greenwood who are trying to eliminate racing not only on Sunday but all days of the week. Sunday racing has been monitored very closely. There have been few, if any, parking problems; if there were, these problems would be addressed. In fact, the residents surrounding the racetrack have been allowed to use the parking facilities of the track. Even part of the grandstand has been made available to charitable organizations for bingo and other uses.

In talking about parking, I would like to put a few other remarks on the record; these deal specifically with parking spaces. There are 4,994 parking spaces at Greenwood. On average, they are less than half full. During the last 13 or 14 months, they have been filled to capacity only once. Also, the Ontario Jockey Club introduced a 400-car free parking lot at the southeast corner of its property. On average, about 200 cars are parked in this lot during live racing, and about 70 cars are parked there during intertrack.

That is free parking we are talking about, and it has been filled to capacity on only one occasion. So there is no reason for racetrack patrons to use area streets for free parking.

The racing commission is pleased to make available -- I am sure it would make them available to the member if she was interested -- aerial photos of Greenwood and the area taken on different Sundays during 1987. These photos make it clear that there is ample parking at Greenwood and that there is no traffic chaos as a result of racing operations.

Finally, I would like to put something on the record which was written by Harold Howe in the Hamilton Spectator. He goes on at length about the economic impact, but he also comments on the structural changes proposed in this bill, and I would like to make reference to them. I am quoting:

“Bryden also calls for an amendment to the Racing Commission Act, providing the commission be composed of seven members of whom only three may be representative of the racing industry. Of the remaining four, she wants one to live within half a mile of Greenwood, two within two miles of a racetrack in Ontario, and the chairman to be independent of both the industry and residents living in the vicinity of racetracks.”

Mr. Howe says, “In short, Bryden is calling for the governing body of horse racing in Ontario to be controlled primarily by people who have little understanding of the sport.” He concludes, “The results would be disastrous.”

We share Mr. Howe’s concern and the concerns of thousands of individuals across this province. We will not be supporting this bill.

Mr. Epp: It is certainly a pleasure to participate in this debate. It seems odd to hear a member of this House promoting an action that could cause the loss of 4,000 jobs in Ontario. Make no mistake, Sunday racing is quite plainly a job issue. It has created many positions in the Greenwood area and many more throughout Ontario. This bill would threaten the overall health of an industry directly employing 49,000 people in the province. By switching Tuesday races to Sundays, Greenwood racetrack brings in an extra $600,000 per week on average. That amount of money buys a lot of horseshoes, pays a lot of grooms and keeps many farmers in business.

Not long ago our racing industry was struggling. Now we are the second-largest jurisdiction in the world, and Sunday racing at Greenwood helped put us there. In the face of recent massive increases in competition from American tracks, there is no doubt we would be in trouble again, fast, if this bill were to pass. Consider that a ban on Sunday racing and intertrack betting at Greenwood could cause the loss of 3,250 jobs in the standardbred industry alone. It is estimated that each point of revenue drop sparks a one per cent drop in employment at the track, off the track and in the supply sector.

No matter how you look at the figures, the loss of more than $500,000 a week would be a hard blow to any industry. And the damage would not end with the loss of direct revenue; spinoff benefits seen in every sector would also be forfeited.

Small operators like the Elmira Raceway in my own constituency would be particularly hard hit. Rebates from taxes on betting revenues are used in part to improve purses at these small tracks. This helps the track horsemen, fosters good racing and ultimately brings in more people, who spend more money. This upward spiral could easily reverse itself if we suddenly pulled the plug on Sunday racing at Greenwood.

To use Elmira as an example, let’s look first at the impact of lost tax rebates. This bill would cause a tax loss of $2.4 million at Greenwood; two per cent of those taxes are rebated to the industry, in part to supplement purses at 17 small tracks across the province. As one of these 17 tracks, Elmira Raceway would be forced to cut purse money by more than five per cent if the supplement were decreased. This at a track where the current purses only barely attract enough good horses to provide competitive racing. Elmira is just now emerging from months of crisis. Without the help of the Ontario government, it would not have operated this year.

I might say in support of what the member before me said, that I have had some firsthand experience in dealing with the chairman of the Ontario Racing Commission. I think he is an outstanding Ontarian and is doing an outstanding job as chairman of that commission.

This bill would effectively plunge Elmira into another financial tailspin. In fact, a local track official fears a cut in purses at this time would force Elmira to close. It would not be alone.

I have presented quite a few statistics and dollar figures, but what do the numbers really mean to the thousands of people involved in Ontario racing? They mean hardship. The negative impact of this bill will be felt from the Beach in Toronto to farm gates in Windsor, Sudbury, Ottawa and all points in between.

We can look at the effect of lost purses and lost revenues on real people, starting with the local horse trainer. The first thing he would do would be to reduce the number of horses in his string. Since he has less money to pay expenses, he has to cut costs. The incomes of blacksmiths, feed producers and many other support industries are also tied to the number of horses the trainer keeps. Fewer horses mean less income, and the fewer the number of horses racing, the poorer the competition. Fans start wandering away to bigger tracks, looking for better races. Elmira’s revenues will drop again, and the downward cycle will continue.

Jobs at neighbouring Flamboro Downs are also threatened by this bill. Even though it is a large facility and does not receive purse supplements, the Hamilton-area track stands to lose $5.3 million in gross betting revenues. Flamboro’s potential difficulties are tied to the process involved in scheduling race dates. The track was permitted to run Sunday matinee races when nearby Mohawk Raceway gained the benefits of intertrack betting at Greenwood on Sundays. It was felt that with this new revenue, Mohawk would not be hurt by Sunday competition from Flamboro. Of course, if this bill were passed, Mohawk would lose that edge and Flamboro could no longer operate on Sundays.

The connection between Flamboro, Mohawk and Greenwood highlights how this bill would have such a devastating effect throughout the province. It is a guiding principle of the Ontario Racing Commission that, for the good of the industry, tracks must be protected from potentially damaging competition.

Ontario runs more race dates than any other jurisdiction in the world. The schedules are carefully co-ordinated to provide for the largest number of events the system can efficiently support. That is why the change of this one day has an immense ripple effect on the whole industry. The decision to allow Sunday racing at Greenwood was based on very real needs and was made as part of a package of changes such as the one mentioned at Flamboro. It is not an isolated component that can be yanked without hurting thousands of people.

Set specifics aside for a moment and let’s look at the overall impact of withdrawing $34 million a year from the industry’s coffers. That money may not be labelled Elmira or London or Orangeville, but it makes its way to these places just as surely as do rebates. It gets to Woodstock, Leamington and Belleville in the hands of people who raise horses and win purses at Greenwood. It reaches Dresden, Bane and Goderich in the overall quality and value of horseflesh fostered by top-notch racing.

Loss of revenue at Greenwood and Mohawk through intertrack waging cuts are forecast to cause a decrease of 16 per cent in prize purses. For every percentage point drop in purses, 60 horses disappear from the Ontario racing scene.

They go to the United States and the fans go with them. Stables lay off their trainers, grooms and other staff. They pack up their needs for horse feed, farriers and vets and take them all across the border. In places like Fort Erie, the fans are hot on their heels because they want good racing. They will follow the top horses into New York in a flash if we chase them in that direction.

If Sunday racing at Greenwood is so good for the economy in almost every corner of this province, think of the benefits it must provide closer to home.

I am surprised that the member for Beaches-Woodbine does not show more concern for the 85 people who found jobs at Greenwood as a direct result of the Sunday opening. These 85 permanent full-time jobs that have been created in this riding are very important to those people and to many other people. I am talking about maintenance staff, clerks, parking attendants and other Ontario Jockey Club employees. They will be among the thousands losing jobs if Sunday racing is stopped.

I am surprised the honourable member does not show more concern for the health of Greenwood racetrack itself. Does it not supply many desperately needed jobs? Does it not boost the local economy enormously? I will be much more surprised if this bill gets any amount of support, and I hope, of course, that the members of this Legislature take this bill very seriously and vote against it.

Just before I close, I want to mention two things. One is that I have a petition here signed by 175 concerned citizens who very much oppose this bill and have asked me, and other members of this Legislature obviously, to vote against it.

Second, I am very much surprised that the member has included in this bill one aspect which would give parking, land use densities and traffic flows and so forth to an appointed commission and --

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Epp: -- want to take it away from the elected members of council.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: I am very surprised at that.

Mr. Reville: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the private member’s bill of the member for Beaches-Woodbine,

An Act to ban Sunday racing and intertrack wagering at Greenwood Raceway and to change the composition and procedures of the Ontario Racing Commission.

I have listened to the previous two speakers, and knowing both of the gentlemen, I can only surmise that they have never been to Greenwood Raceway on a Sunday or they would not be making such preposterous statements today in the Legislature.

Another thing that seems to me to be clear is that their speeches consist entirely of information provided to them by the Ontario Racing Commission, which, of course, is making its business case about the needs of the racing industry and, regrettably, takes no account of the needs of the community which lives adjacent to what is in fact a 100-acre facility surrounded on three sides by people’s homes.

I think the Greenwood Raceway is unique in this regard in Ontario. There may well be racing facilities in the Waterloo North area. There may well be in Leeds-Grenville. I do not follow the racehorses around myself, so I do not know that; but I do know quite a lot about Greenwood Raceway because, having had the opportunity to serve for a number of years on Toronto city council, I had the opportunity to see not only the behaviour of the Ontario Jockey Club and the Ontario Racing Commission, but also hear at some length the concerns of residents who live close by.

The members opposite, both on the government side and in the third party, have recited a number of facts and figures which, of course, are irrefutable, I suppose, because we have not got the data before us. It strikes me that this is not an unusual kind of dilemma to face a policymaker.

If members of the Legislature will try to think about industries that are known to be polluting, and given the increasing concern for the environment legislators have to deal with the threat that those industries consistently make to us, that is, “If you force us to clean up our operation, this will be at the risk of jobs or perhaps we will have to close down, and we will lose the jobs.” We have two social goods competing. We have, on the one hand, jobs, which we know we need and which are important to the economy; on the other hand, we have the environment. Of course, if we destroy it, no number of jobs will ever replace it.

I put to you, Madam Speaker, that that is totally analogous to this situation. We have a facility that has been there for a very long time. Around it has grown or perhaps existed previously a community where people live, and until 1986 they did have their Sunday when they were not inundated by people going off to the races and behaving in the sorts of ways that people do when they go off to a recreational event of some kind. Some behave very well and some behave less well, particularly after they have lost their paycheque at the racetrack; sometimes they express their concern loudly and in other ways in the neighbourhood adjacent to the raceway.

The member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) made some astounding remarks. He suggested that my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine, being unsuccessful in the courts, was now seeking to do what she could not do in the courts through legislation. Well, that is true, and I am amazed that the member for Leeds-Grenville would find that remarkable. The reason the court challenges were unsuccessful was because of legislation, and what the member is quite properly seeking to do is to create a piece of legislation which would give the residents some input into decisions that are made by the racing commission that have a profound impact on their daily lives.

While they share some pride that we have managed to create -- did the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) say the second-largest racing industry in the world? But surely we do not want to create that at the expense of other people; that does not make sense to me.

Mr. Epp: Don’t you take pride in it?

Mr. Reville: The member for Waterloo North wonders whether I take pride in something. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, what I take pride in. I take pride in the right of people who are affected by an undertaking to be able to participate in how that undertaking is run. That is a fairly common principle of democracy, which strikes me as something that we are bound to take pride in. None of us would be here if we did not take pride in that absolutely basic tenet of democracy.

The Ontario Jockey Club and the Ontario Racing Commission have been profoundly antithetical to input from anybody other than people in the racing industry. Of course, they are knowledgeable about the racing industry. How knowledgeable are they about community impact? Clearly, not very knowledgeable at all. It is one thing to know about horseshoes; it is another thing to know what the constituent parts of life in a community are. I submit that the people currently on the racing commission have little experience of and what appears to be little interest in impacts on communities. I am very sorry about that.

The member for Waterloo North talks about the boost to the local economy. Clearly, the member for Waterloo North has not been to the Beach on a Sunday to see how the local economy is booming, quite apart from any economic additions that the raceway has. In fact, I was out at the Beach last Sunday. It has a kind of very Coney Island atmosphere at this time of year with literally thousands of people from all over the city coming to enjoy some of the attributes of that area.

Some of them were related to the race schedule, but most had come to the Beach to go to the local restaurants, to stop off and get an ice-cream cone on the sidewalk, to walk along the boardwalk, to enjoy the beautiful parks and to participate in the illegal Sunday shopping, I might add, that also sometimes seems to happen in that area.

The decision, I am told by my colleagues opposite, is based on the “real needs” of the industry. That may well be. I put to the members of the Legislature that what is missing from that examination is the needs of the people who live cheek by jowl with this raceway. The protestations that people can go and park on Greenwood Raceway property are just really absurd. People with any notion at all of the topography and of the location of those parking opportunities would know that if you live in the Beach triangle and you have to go and park in the Greenwood Raceway property, you would have to take a lunch to eat while on your way home.

Clearly, that is not a great advantage to the neighbours. In spite of these aerial photographs, produced by God knows what intelligence agency, people ought to go and look at the tow-trucks pulling the cars that do not belong there out of the Beach triangle, cars that are parked right across one’s driveway or on one’s lawn. It is probably the only residential tow-away zone in North America, and that was not done for no reason at all.

I urge members of the Legislature to reconsider, to support the residents of this community, to send the bill to committee and make whatever suggestions for amendments they wish.

Mrs. Marland: In rising to speak to this private bill by the member for Beaches-Woodbine to ban Sunday racing and to other parts of her bill, I want to say at the outset that I am very sympathetic to the problem. I am sympathetic to the problem for the residents -- the home owners and the tenants -- who live in that community. I am also sympathetic to the member for her responsibility as an elected representative in this Legislature for the area that encompasses this problem.

I appreciated having a letter from her. There are some quotes in her letter that I want to refer to. She does explain very well to all of us that her concern has been, first of all, that the problem exists and that there has been no adequate public input into any of the decisions about the use of this racetrack. At the end of her letter, she urges us to support the principles of open government and community consultation by voting for her bill.

I want to say most assuredly to this member and to everyone else in this Legislature that I totally support the principles of open government and community consultation. Coming from a background of 12 years in municipal government, I believe for elected representatives community consultation has to be a way of life. Otherwise, if we do not consult with the community, how do we know what the community wishes in terms of our representation?

The difficulty I have, however, with this bill is that we are discussing this whole matter in the wrong forum. With my municipal background, as I have just described, I know very well these kinds of problems exist for any number of different reasons, any number of different uses within a community, but there are remedies at the municipal level for the parking, noise, garbage and congested transit problems.

I suggest it is rather ironic discussing it here, because this is an issue that is a municipal problem, while there is about to be a provincial problem, which I would like to discuss and have resolved here, namely, Sunday shopping, and that is going to become a municipal problem.

I think when we look at this bill this morning, we should be looking at the local municipal options in terms of remedy. I know that for the residents in that area there is a horrific situation with parking, litter, noise, garbage and the other things the other members have mentioned this morning. I am not denying it, or even debating that there is not a problem. I acknowledge there is.

However, I suggest there are similar problems for those people who are fortunate or unfortunate, whichever their choice would be, to live adjacent to the Canadian National Exhibition grounds, for example, during Blue Jay or Argonaut games or rock concerts or other things that attract an inordinate number of people on Sundays to those events. Some people live adjacent to community centres, arenas, banquet halls, any of these public-use facilities, where on Sundays too there are events. In some cases, weddings take place on Sundays. Certainly, bingo is becoming a very popular heavy use of public facilities on Sundays.

Where problems are generated by the use of facilities by the public, either publicly owned facilities or privately owned facilities available to the public, then the responsibility lies with the municipality to make sure that those uses are not an intrusion into that community, either by ensuring that sufficient onsite parking is available for those facilities or that there is sufficient transit service there that people are not bound to use their own vehicles and park them in front of other people’s homes and private residences.

When I hear this morning that there is sufficient room in the parking lots at this racetrack, it confirms for me even more so that this bill is not necessary to remedy the problem. It is time that the municipality decided to enforce its own parking standards. If it does not have particular parking standards for this community, then it is very simple for it to pass its own bylaws, which might provide for parking prohibition on Sunday afternoons only, so it does not impede the use of those streets by the residents at other times. The municipality can prohibit parking between certain hours on certain days -- whatever. All those choices are available to the municipality.

If I were an attendee at this raceway, obviously I would prefer to park for nothing in front of someone’s house than pay whatever the parking fee is in the parking lot. As the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) said a few moments ago, it may well be that I can park closer if I park in front of somebody’s private home than if I park at the far end where the spaces are vacant in the parking lot for the racetrack.

In any case, there is a remedy outside of this forum. I cannot support the bill because I feel this Legislature is stepping into a municipal jurisdiction. If we do this with this issue, then if I were living adjacent to other sources of annoyance, like other public uses I have already outlined, and if I could not get a resolution through my own municipal alderman or councillor, I would be coming into this forum also and trying something else.

I might mention that I have had a little comment on this bill very recently from a member of my own Queen’s Park staff, Mrs. Susan Carroll. She and her husband Chris live within the Beaches area where this problem exists. I have said to them I am not unsympathetic to the problem. I am simply saying to those people who live in those areas, let’s use the right forum. If I were one of those residents or property owners, I would be down on the floor of Toronto city hail asking for the remedy if I had not been able to get it through my local representatives.

I think the people who live in that area have been fortunate because they have had their local MPP involved to the extent that she has seen fit to bring this bill here today. The remedy does exist, but it exists at the municipal level. I hope that we clearly do not feel we have to step into municipal areas to solve municipal problems, because we have more than enough to resolve at the provincial level. Even so, we currently seem to have a Liberal government that feels some of its provincial responsibilities should be referred to the municipalities, even though that is not the forum. Of course, I am referring to the subject of Sunday shopping.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Haggerty: With what little time is left, perhaps I will have to cover it in a hurry.

Mr. Speaker: You have two minutes.

Mr. Haggerty: I am delighted to enter the debate and speak on second reading of Bill 12,

An Act to ban Sunday racing and intertrack wagering at Greenwood Raceway and to change the composition and procedures of the Ontario Racing Commission. I am here representing an area that has a racetrack. I live in the town of Fort Erie and I know the special interest the member for Beaches-Woodbine has, as well as I do, in the Fort Erie racetrack.

I am rather astonished that the member is not concerned about the loss of jobs within the whole racing industry in Ontario if Sunday racing is banned at Greenwood. It will affect jobs at the racetrack in Fort Erie and in the town of Fort Erie, and 32,250 jobs are nothing to ignore.

I look at the situation in the past in Fort Erie and I have spoken on a number of occasions in the Legislature on the matter of horse-racing in Ontario. I think of the serious problem the Fort Erie racetrack had a few years ago and the difficulties it was facing. They almost closed it down until intertrack betting came into the picture. We can see the nice green grounds, the atmosphere and the environment in Greenwood on television at Fort Erie at the racetrack.

I suggest that the member is not concerned about it. The jobs that are there across the province are more important. In fact, horse-racing is one of the oldest industries in Ontario. It is perhaps one of the cleanest, looking at it environmentally. It is not a smokestack type of industry. Yes, there are problems of traffic in Fort Erie, but it is a local issue and the municipality has found a resolution to resolve that problem. I suggest to the member that I cannot support --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but there is a time allotment. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has reserved four minutes.

Ms. Bryden: I am disappointed to see that some members of the Progressive Conservative Party and some members of the Liberal Party are still in a love affair with the Ontario Jockey Club and the other people behind it. They appear to have no love for the democratic rights of the residents and appear not to be concerned about conflicts of interest within the racing commission.

Let me read who the present members of the racing commission are. Outside of Frank Drea, the chairman, there is Mr. Hayes from Beamsville, who has raised standardbreds and has a farm; Mr. Byrne, who raises horses and has a stud farm; Mr. Sherwin, who raises standardbreds and is also in the milk transport business; Mr. Graham, who is a roads contractor but breeds and owns thoroughbreds; Mr. Lang, who is a farmer and raises standardbred horses; and Mr. Addison, who sells cars and owns horses. That is the racing commission.

Also, it seems to me that we do have a possible charter issue here where residents are being denied natural justice, the right to be heard and the right to have their concerns considered. I am very disappointed that the spokesmen, particularly for the Liberal Party and the member for Leeds-Grenville, gave us only the racing-industry side of the story.

All those jobs do not have to be lost; none of them has to be lost. They could be transferred to other racetracks. They would enhance the operations of other racetracks. If there were more activity at other racetracks, there would be less at this one overextended racetrack that is bearing far more than its share of the community burden for the racing industry in this province. There is lots of space at Woodbine for more races. There are probably lots of spaces at Fort Erie for more races.

The jobs are not necessarily linked only to Greenwood. I think it is a false premise to say that a whole lot of jobs are going to be lost. There are also jobs being lost at Greenwood because of traffic congestion, because of the fact that people cannot get to the other recreational activities and because of the fact that they cannot get to the stores and the restaurants, such as the McDonald’s in the letter I read. So it is not a one-sided issue.

With regard to the 85 jobs mentioned as being created at Greenwood as a result of Sunday opening, what is a part-time job on a Sunday afternoon in the way of employment? It is not really adding to the employment situation and to the kinds of jobs we need. I think that those are all false, bogeymen that have been put up to make it look as though this is an unreasonable request.

There was mention made of traffic chaos. When they took the aerial picture showing traffic chaos, it may have been after the races were all in; it did not show the chaos when coming and leaving. If they had taken a picture at the east-end Easter parade last year, they would have seen the most awful traffic chaos. This year, unfortunately, the skies opened up and there was not as big a crowd, but two years ago there was terrible traffic chaos in the middle of the Easter parade, which is an annual event that has been going on for 20 to 30 years.

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

Ms. Bryden: I do urge the members to put aside their partisan loyalty to the jockey --

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. We have now completed the allotted time for debate on the two ballot items.

TRADE WITH SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Velshi has moved resolution 31.

Motion agreed to.

GREENWOOD RACEWAY ACT

The House divided on Ms. Bryden’s motion for second reading of Bill 12, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Farnan, Grier, Mackenzie, Martel, Morin-Strom, Reville, Swart, Wildman.

Nays

Ballinger, Black, Brandt, Brown, Callahan, Carrothers, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Dietsch, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Ferraro, Fleet, Haggerty, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Kozyra, Lipsett, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, McGuigan, McLean, Miclash, Miller, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Owen, Pelissero, Poirier, Pollock, Poole, Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Stoner, Sullivan, Tatham, Velshi, Wilson, Wong, Wrye.

Ayes 11; nays 46.

The House recessed at 12:10 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Laughren: In my more than 16 years as a member of this assembly, there is no single issue which comes back to haunt members of the Legislature year after year as much as the problems of injured workers. There is virtually no MPP who does not have his or her office clogged with problems with our compensation system.

If it is not a problem of inadequate pensions, it is a problem of inadequate benefits. If it is not a problem of benefits, it is a problem of inadequate regional offices across the province. If it is not a problem with regional offices, it is a problem with vocational rehabilitation, or the appeal system, or a $6-billion unfunded liability or a problem of older workers getting neither benefits nor alternative employment when they have had an injury.

I wonder how long it is going to take this government to understand that the system is a dinosaur and that the compensation we have in this province is inadequate. It will never meet the needs of injured workers and will never dispense justice to injured workers in the province. It is time that this government look at a major new social policy; namely, the development of a universal sickness and accident compensation system for the province, so that we can move finally into the 20th century in the way we treat injured workers in Ontario.

HAROLD G. SHIPP

Mrs. Marland: It is indeed a pleasure and a privilege for me to rise today to share with this House the wonderful news of the appointment of the Mississauga Citizen of the Year, 1988. This gentleman’s name is well known, not only, of course, within our city but also beyond the bounds of this province and this country and throughout the United States. The man to whom this honour has been given this year is Harold G. Shipp.

Mr. Shipp is perhaps one of the most worthy recipients of this award in the history of the award in the city of Mississauga. Ironically, the award is named for Mr. Shipp’s father, Gordon, and recognizes in his name all that exemplifies honour and caring throughout the municipality, the province and the country.

In mentioning that this award has been given to Harold Shipp this year, I also want to recognize that his father has received posthumously the award as being a member of the National Housing Hall of Fame in Washington in May 1988. As Harold Shipp shares this honour, he is supported by his family, his wife, June, and his children, Catharine, Victoria and Gordon.

PETER LAING

Miss Roberts: I am very pleased and proud to rise in the House today to recognize one of the outstanding citizens of the city of St. Thomas, and indeed the county of Elgin, Alderman Peter Laing.

Alderman Laing has served the citizens of Elgin in a number of different roles, the most notable of which is his 54 years as a member of the St. Thomas city council. First elected in 1933, Alderman Laing has served four years as mayor and over 40 years as an alderman. Since being elected, Alderman Laing has served on many boards and commissions in the city. Now 84 years of age, he does not plan to seek re-election at the end of his current term, which started in 1959.

During his public service, Alderman Laing served for 20 years on the Catfish Creek Conservation Authority, five of those years as chairman. In 1941 Alderman Laing was elected to the board of trustees of the Memorial Hospital and served as chairman for six years.

His contribution laid the groundwork for the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital, where he eventually served on the board of governors from 1955 to 1956. In his personal life, Alderman Laing won the 1923 wrestling championship for Ontario and competed in the Olympic trials in both boxing and wrestling.

He is also an elder of the Alma Street Presbyterian Church. I would ask you to join me in welcoming Alderman Peter Laing to the House today. He is sitting in the west gallery with his brother, George, and Mayor Janet Golding.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Farnan: The parents of children at St. Vincent de Paul School in Cambridge are questioning why, before their new school is one year old, they will see several portables on site. They are particularly angry that their school has no gymnasium.

This is almost unbelievable, when one realizes that the structure of the school was designed so that additional classrooms could be easily attached to the existing facility.

Why, they ask, design a structure that allows classrooms to be joined to the main building, and then add portables? They have difficulty understanding how the minister could have approved the new school facility without a gymnasium.

It is unacceptable for the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to state, as he did yesterday in response to my questions, that the capital request from the school board did not include a gymnasium. It is also unacceptable to brush aside the needs of the St. Vincent de Paul School community and assert that their concerns can only be addressed when the board makes its next capital submission in October.

The school board has already indicated that it is willing to proceed with the gymnasium and classrooms if the minister will allocate the required funding. I urge the minister to respond to the immediate needs of St. Vincent de Paul School, provide the funds for the gymnasium and, instead of portables, have additional classrooms attached to the main building.

We might ask if a school board made a request for a school without washrooms, would the minister approve it? In this case, the board made the request for a school without a gymnasium and the minister approved it.

HOUSING SUPPLY

Mr. Cousens: Last week I asked the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) how many rental units she anticipated would be built in Ontario this year. In response, the minister invited me to visit with her and see some of the things that she had been showing the Quebec Minister responsible for Housing.

I have had an opportunity to analyse the relationship between the Ontario Minister of Housing and her Quebec counterpart. I think the House would like to know the truth about the discrepancy in the performance of these two ministers. It is an interesting thing to note that in 1987 Quebec had 26,644 rental apartment starts. During that same period, Ontario had only 10,909 starts, about 40 per cent of the Quebec total. Even after adding all the condominium apartment construction, the Quebec performance is still 10,000 units ahead of Ontario.

Last Thursday the Minister of Housing told this House that the Quebec Minister responsible for Housing was here to observe just how well we do things in Ontario. In light of the fact that Quebec is miles ahead of this government in providing rental accommodation, her statement borders on the ridiculous.

One more revealing comparison between Ontario and Quebec: In Toronto, the vacancy rate under this government has dipped below 0.1 per cent, or less than one unit per 1,000. In Montreal, the vacancy rate is well over three per cent; three units for every 100 people. At the same time, Montreal had more than 17,000 rental unit starts in 1987 while Toronto only had about 3,700. Bad news.

PURCHASE OF SUBMARINES

Mr. Tatham: Mr. Speaker, what would you do with $8 billion? Ask a western farmer and he might suggest part of the money for western agriculture. There are very bad drought conditions out there. Would an unemployed person in Newfoundland or Cape Breton have any idea where it should be spent?

Ask your friend in Environment, how much money could be used to clean up the environment? What about more money for schools? What about more money for hospitals? Has everybody got good housing?

What would you do with $8 billion? Why, maybe buy some nice British or French nuclear-powered submarines.

OSHAWA SPORTS HALL OF FAME

Mr. Breaugh: I know members are anxiously awaiting the announcements for the Oshawa Sports Hall of Fame. Last night in Oshawa they had their annual ceremony, and here are the winners this year:

Sandy Hawley, who of course is one of North America’s leading jockeys; Mike Keenan, one of the world’s greatest hockey coaches and managers; a figure skater and coach, Anna Forder-McLaughlin; Robert Andrews, who was one of the founding members of the Neighborhood Association Softball Committee in Oshawa; and Ivan Richards, who headed the drive to form the Oshawa Ski Club and who has a grandson on the national ski-jumping team.

Mr. Brandt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the consent of the House for unanimous approval to give a brief statement with respect to the 70th anniversary of the Armenian national republic.

Agreed to.

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. Brandt: First of all, I would like to thank my colleagues for giving me this opportunity.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to pay special tribute to the Armenian people of Ontario as they reach two milestones in their history: first, the centennial of their arrival in Canada; and second, the 70th anniversary of the Armenian republic.

For many, immigration can be exciting and at the same time disturbing: exciting, for immigration can open new doors leading to peace, prosperity and happiness; but yes, disturbing as well, for certainly it is never easy to leave one’s homeland and to settle in a new foreign country, often with foreign languages and foreign cultures.

This was particularly the case for the Armenian people, who did not leave their homeland, per se, but, perhaps more appropriately, fled their homeland. It is a terrible thing to be forced from one’s own homeland. It is a terrible thing to look back on one’s history, yes, with pride, but also with sadness over the atrocities, the lost lives and the persecution that occurred in that country.

Rather than dwell on these past atrocities, the Armenian people have shown courage and determination by forging ahead and carving out their own niche here in Canada.

We are the richer for it. We are not only proud of the Armenian spirit, but we are also thankful for it. They have shared with us their culture, their history and their traditions. They have set an example that many other immigrants or refugees, whatever the case may be, would be wise to follow.

On behalf of my party, and if I may be so bold, on behalf of the citizens of Ontario, I would like to send a sincere thank you to the Armenian people of this province for enriching our lives over the past 100 years. May that continue into the next century as well.

Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government of Ontario, we too would like to join in recognizing a special event that is of great significance for the Armenian community in Canada.

The important event that took place on this day 70 years ago was the proclamation of the Republic of Armenia on May 28, 1918. Of course, as was just mentioned, this date is of great significance to our Armenian community, and also to Armenians around the world.

Ontario and the Canadian nation have prospered through the courage and industry of people of many nationalities who have come to this land in search of freedom and opportunity. On this day, we are especially mindful of the important contributions that our citizens of Armenian ancestry have made to our province and country since they first arrived in Canada to settle in the St. Catharines area.

The celebration of this anniversary fosters within us a deeper appreciation of freedom, of liberty and of democratic ideals. Therefore, I hope that all members of this Legislature can join us in remembering May 28 as Armenian Independence Day.

Mr. B. Rae: I am delighted to join with all the members of the Legislature in celebrating the contribution of the Armenian community to this country and also in remembering the extraordinary suffering which has accompanied the experience of the Armenians in this century.

It is perhaps worth recalling again the famous words of Adolf Hitler who is widely reported to have said, when he was confronted with those who asked him about his plans for the Jews in central Europe in the 1930s and 1940s and when he was asked about the impact this decision would have on mankind, “Who today remembers the Armenians?”

I can think of no more awesome words than those, because they remind us of the experience of the Armenian people and the tremendous changes that took place in Europe in 1914, 1915 and 1916.

The fact is that a people were nearly wiped out. In remembering the awfulness of that event, we also recall that it was that event which produced the first wave of Armenian immigration to this country. I do not have to remind honourable members of some of the remarkable contributions that the Armenians have made to this country. In every profession, in every walk of life, in every field of endeavour, the Armenian people have made a really remarkable and extraordinary contribution to this country.

Finally, I think it fully appropriate that even in an era of glasnost we recall and remember at this time just how difficult the experience of the Armenian people who are living in the Soviet Union today is. We realize that we are not aware, because the Soviet Union is still such a closed society, that we are not fully aware of the size of the demonstration, of the extent of the national feeling and of the experience of those who are punished and find it difficult to express themselves because they are not allowed to practise their religion freely.

They are not allowed to express themselves in their own culture freely and they are not allowed to even speak their own language as freely as they would like to be able to do.

So let us celebrate and remember in the way that we do the 70th anniversary, but let us also recall that it is a cause which remains with us, important to us, and one which is as much a cause of concern and outreach on our part as it is a cause for celebration.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO-OMAN EDUCATION AGREEMENT

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I am pleased to advise the Legislature that this week I was privileged to sign an historic memorandum of understanding between Ontario and His Excellency, Minister al-Mantheri, Minister of Education and Youth for the Sultanate of Oman and Acting Vice-Chancellor of Sultan Qaboos University.

The signing represents the completion of efforts begun by two previous Ministers of Colleges and Universities, Dr. Bette Stephenson and the Honourable Gregory Sorbara.

This agreement embodies a new global spirit of co-operation in education, human resources development and technology transfer. It also represents a realistic assessment of the increasing interdependence of the nations of this planet.

Oman is currently going through a period of rapid development and economic diversification. I am confident that Ontario can play a cooperative role during this complex period of transition in the development of its most important asset, its human capital.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO-OMAN EDUCATION AGREEMENT

Mr. B. Rae: We want to simply note with interest the minister’s announcement and look forward to notice of her own visits, which will no doubt be frequent and many as will be those of her colleagues. We look forward to all parties participating in a very active study of this question, which will no doubt require many onsite tours to make sure everything is going well.

Mr. Jackson: I wish as well to join in the unanimous tribute of this House to the efforts of this government and past governments to effect this historic and significant agreement.

It is worth noting, of course, that the situation in the country that is mentioned has unique customs with respect to its approach not only to politicians, but politicians of specific gender. I think it is a tribute to Dr. Bette Stephenson that she has been and continues to be afforded a respect and appreciation quite unparalleled for a western political leader and a woman.

I think it is important that the House put in perspective that, although governments sometimes make statements and bureaucrats run around and effect agreements, in fact, it takes the vision and the dreams of individual politicians and their leadership to effect these kinds of historic agreements. For that, all members of the House can pay tribute not only to Dr. Bette Stephenson, the former member for York Mills, and her vision, but also to the current member for continuing that commitment.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to join my colleagues in the House in congratulating the minister on the signing of this historic agreement and indicate to her that one of the purposes, if I may sound so crass, in terms of the raison d’etre, for signing this agreement and for establishing a contact in that part of the world, was also to improve the recognition of Ontario and the understanding and appreciation of Canada in that part of the world.

I think it comes as no surprise to the minister or to members of this House that there are many people in that part of the world who happen to be rather wealthy, who do not trade extensively with our part of the world, simply because we are not known to them. I could include many of the emirates that are placed in that particular

section of the Middle East, places like Bahrain and Abu Dhabi and a number of other countries, all of which are beginning, I think, to have a greater appreciation for Ontario and the goods we can trade with and sell them by way of export opportunities. As well, we can build a very solid foundation of understanding between Ontario and that part of the world with respect to educational systems and the entire basis of the structure of the agreement we are going to be entering into.

I congratulate the minister. I wish her well, but I want to say to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) as well as to her colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) that there are trade opportunities there. I think those trade opportunities should be maximized as a result of this document and as a result of the inroads that this allows us to have with that country and others in that area.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to give notice that I was intending to ask a question today of the Premier (Mr. Peterson); and then if he was not here of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). My understanding was that the Attorney General was going to be here.

Interjection.

Mr. B. Rae: Well, that was our information. It is a little difficult to do business if both senior officials who are responsible for the government’s response on free trade are not here the day after the Attorney General holds a press conference. If he cannot even bother to be here, it is a little difficult to do business.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the question has been asked whether the --

Mr. B. Rae: I am asking the government House leader --

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am happy to respond to the Leader of the Opposition that it is my information that the Attorney General is in Quebec City attending a national conference of attorneys general today.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the clock is running. I think it is inappropriate at this time for the clock to be moving while we are discussing this matter.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite a sound suggestion. I will see how long this takes and then we might add some to the question period.

Do you have a question for another minister?

Mr. B. Rae: Of course I do. Is the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) here? She was here earlier.

Mr. Breaugh: Is there anybody here?

Mr. B. Rae: Is there anybody here? Is there anybody home?

Interjections.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question, now that she is in the House. I have some more cases I would like to draw to her attention, but I would like to ask her in particular what her response is to this situation:

Mr. Fletcher is 69 years old and lives with his wife outside Belleville. She has Alzheimers disease. He is the only one at home able to care for her. He needs a new left total hip, which was originally scheduled for November 14, 1988. He has now been told this is being delayed until September 5, 1989. Mr. Fletcher has told us that he is so troubled by this that he is going to be asking his doctor to give him a referral to the United States. He would rather pay for the operation and get it done than to have to wait for this kind of period of time to get the operation carried out in Ontario.

I know the minister must feel this is an extraordinary indictment of our health care system.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister can tell us what precisely she is going to do to see that this example is dealt with, so that people do not have to wait for a year and a half and two years for operations that are essential to relieve pain and to allow people to get on with their lives.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The issue the Leader of the Opposition raises is one we have discussed a number of times in this House, one of waiting lists, which are not new in this province, nor are they new across this country or worldwide. As we address those, we are looking at what is the cause in the increase of some of those waiting lists and how we can respond appropriately through good planning to make sure people have the treatment as close to home as possible. That is why we have developed a regionalized approach to health care in this province, so that as people need treatment, they can have it as close to home as possible.

Mr. B. Rae: I cannot believe the minister is answering these questions in this way. She has now had notice from us and from the public of the extent of the problem. She has told us the question is one of planning. She has a chance to get her planning in place. I am asking her what she is going to do to get the list down.

Let me give her another example. A woman whose name is Louise Whyton, who is 39 years old and lives in Huntsville, needs to have operations on both of her ankles. She is housebound. She lives on a permanent disability pension. She is in pain all the time, and her operation has been postponed until July 1989.

Does the minister not appreciate that what she is doing by her stance of saying there is basically nothing she can do and nothing she will do is leaving these people on a list out there in limbo, in pain for as long as a year and a half to two years? That is happening right now as I speak. Why cannot the minister announce in this House the precise steps she intends to take to make sure we begin to cut down on these waiting lists and allow these patients to get the operations they need? This is not a question of some frivolous cosmetic surgery.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. B. Rae: This is essential for these people’s health and wellbeing.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Not to be misinterpreted, I want to be absolutely clear on this. There are no simple, quick or overnight solutions to a problem which has been growing and has been with us for some 5 to 10 years. We are looking at the short-term response, and we are doing that by meeting with and working with the district health councils, as I have recently done on cardiac care. We are looking at wherever there are long waiting lists right now to determine what an appropriate response is in the short term.

In the longer term, this is a result, in my view, of the kind of unplanned, unmanaged system which has resulted in longer lines than I believe are acceptable. What we are attempting to do at this time, through better planning and better management, is to make sure we do not have the kind of independent planning by hospitals, independent action of new and expanded programs which, in my view, result in longer waiting lines. I am determined to make sure we have the kind of system in this province which will allow us to address those issues not only in the short term, but in the longer term as well.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister’s definition of planning is from the same government whose planning on rent review has meant that people who got a rent increase in 1985 are going to be waiting until 1989 or 1990 to find out what their increase was supposed to be in 1985. It is unbelievable what her attitude is in terms of simply blaming the institutions, blaming the people who are attempting to wrestle with this problem and cutting back on their funding.

With respect to the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital, the fact is it is going to be performing fewer operations this year because of the budgetary decisions she has made. Can the minister confirm that, as a result of her funding decisions in this particular example, the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital is going to be performing fewer operations in a program that has been approved? She should not talk about all the stuff that has not been approved. This is an approved program by a doctor who is approved to perform this surgery. He has a longer waiting list because the hospital is unable to perform as many surgeries this year as last year. Is that her definition of planning?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that there has not been one budget of a hospital in this province that has been cut. They have been increased over the last four years. Since 1984-85, they have been increased by some 39 per cent. To suggest the budgets have been cut is wrong and is a distortion of the facts.

Mr. B. Rae: All right. Let’s get into this. If she wants to get into this --

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. B. Rae: Is the minister aware that the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital is going to be performing fewer of the surgeries I have mentioned, which I described to the minister over a period of weeks? Is she aware they are going to be performing fewer? If that is not a cut, just what is?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital is but one of a number of hospitals across this province that offers services in the area of orthopaedics in hips, knees and other joints. It is one of a number. The Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital has experienced a deficit this past year because it expanded services above the ministry-approved level. We have asked it to come forward with a balanced budget.

What I am suggesting to the Leader of the Opposition is that if we say to hospitals to go forward and expand beyond ministry approval without that approval first, we will have longer waiting lists rather than shorter, because we are then saying to these hospitals: “Act independently. Do not consider the provincial objective of a well-planned and well-managed system.”

My advice to the Leader of the Opposition is that he should be supporting our efforts in making sure that hospitals are fairly funded and that we should not deal with one individual in isolation from the whole plan. I would have expected his support for this kind of initiative.

Mr. B. Rae: If the minister is waiting for me to approve of her policy, which is to blame individual institutions in public, to do what she did to the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, which I regard personally as unconscionable in terms of the people who work at that hospital, in light of the information she had before her from her own report -- it is unconscionable for her to do that -- she is going to wait a long time. In fact, she is going to wait until hell freezes over because we are not going to do it. It is as simple as that.

I would like to ask the minister, with respect to the particular examples I am giving her, can she confirm that fewer hip replacements, fewer ankle replacements and fewer knee replacements will be performed by the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital as a result of decisions taken by her ministry? Can she confirm that? Yes or no?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: What I would like to state again in this House, as I have on a number of occasions, is that I do not believe that in this issue there are any white hats or black hats, nor am I in any way placing blame. If anyone wants to assess why we are having this difficulty, it is because over the years there has been an inconsistent message. I gave quotes previously from previous ministers who said, “You must have approval before you spend.” Deficits are overspending.

We recognize there are problems. It was acknowledged a year ago by the former minister, who said, “We will give you a one-time adjustment and then we want you to work with us to bring forward balanced budgets that will allow the kind of planning we need in this province to ensure that each hospital can respond in a planned way to the needs of its community.”

I think that is a reasonable approach and one that should be supported by everyone in the House. This is not a partisan issue. The fundamentals of our health care delivery system in this province are at stake. If we have hospitals operating independently, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, we will have chaos.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister talks about planning. She asks, “Who is going to plan?”

I am talking to the chief planner. She says she is in charge. I am asking her a question as a point of information. I am asking the minister, as the chief planner, can she tell us whether the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital is going to be performing fewer operations this year than last year of the kind I have been describing in this House? Yes or no? I am asking that question.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Leader of the Opposition, with all due respect, I think is being simplistic. What we are attempting to do is look across this province at how we provide those services. We have said to hospitals that we expect them to bring forth a deficit reduction program which does not jeopardize the delivery of essential services.

That is a very clear message and we are working with the majority of the hospitals in this province, which want to work with us in a planned and co-operative way to achieve the result that I know is the objective of every member of this House.

To single out one institution is, I think, an unreasonable approach to what is a province-wide system in delivery of health care. I want to tell him that the budget at the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital has been increased over last year.

MINISTRY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Chairman of Management Board.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: Do you want me to start over, Mr. Speaker? My question is for the Chairman of Management Board.

There appears to be somewhat of a dichotomy on that side of the House relative to the whole question of the level of service one gets for the amount of money one spends. From our perspective on this side of the House, it appears the more that is spent by that government, the less service people are getting. It is very evident in the health field.

I want to point out to the Chairman of Management Board one of the reasons that kind of a dichotomy is occurring with respect to the most recent budget of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the way the government is managing its funds.

Is the minister aware of the fact that the costs in the main office of his government, which deals with only the ministers and the deputy ministers, in a four-year period have gone up by some 50 per cent, which amounts to some $22 million in that period of time? To put it into some perspective for him, my colleague the critic for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities tells me that is more than enough to build a brand new high school in Ontario. Does the minister think over 50 per cent is a reasonable increase for his bureaucratic functions relating only to ministers and deputy ministers?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman chooses, I think, to overlook some very important features with respect to some of those expenses in main office. Some of those things deal with