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

November 10, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L103 - Thu 10 Nov 1988 / Jeu 10 nov 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL SMOKING BY-LAW AUTHORIZATION ACT

FEDERAL HOUSING POLICY

MUNICIPAL SMOKING BY-LAW AUTHORIZATION ACT

FEDERAL HOUSING POLICY

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

CIVIL SERVANTS’ LEGAL FEES

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

NOTRE DAME HIGH SCHOOL

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

POLISH INDEPENDENCE DAY

FOREST MANAGEMENT

NATASHA KHASSIN

REMEMBRANCE DAY

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON WOMEN’S ISSUES / RAPPORT ANNUEL, CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE L’ONTARIO SUR LA CONDITION FÉMININE

DISASTER RELIEF

IDEA CORP.

RESPONSES

DISASTER RELIEF

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON WOMEN’S ISSUES

IDEA CORP.

DISASTER RELIEF

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON WOMEN’S ISSUES

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

CASE OF ANTONIO PRETE AND GINO TURCHIARO

IDEA CORP.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

MAINTENANCE OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

NURSING SERVICES

SEXUAL ASSAULT

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

TRANSIT SERVICES

NATURAL GAS PRICING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

IDEA CORP.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

TAXES

MOTION

ESTIMATES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10:01 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL SMOKING BY-LAW AUTHORIZATION ACT

Mr. Sterling moved second reading of Bill 157,

An Act to authorize Municipalities to pass By-laws respecting Smoking in the Workplace and in Enclosed Public Places.

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

Mr. Sterling: At the outset, I would like to reserve any portion that is not used in the next 20 minutes for a windup after other members of the Legislature have had an opportunity to comment.

I am very pleased today to speak on behalf of Bill 157, the Municipal Smoking By-law Authorization Act. However, I would like to make it clear from the outset that this legislation, frankly, is my second choice to bring forward at this time. I would have preferred to bring forward Bill 3, which also stands in my name, the NonSmokers’ Protection Act, which would have invoked province-wide control on smoking in public places, public vehicles and in the workplace. It is not an optional bill whereby municipalities opt in or opt out. It would have applied to all areas of the province, inclusively.

It was just yesterday that I received a letter from Dr. Goodyear of the Ontario Cancer Foundation, Hamilton Clinic. He too disagrees with the priority of my bills and suggests:

“A province-wide measure is going to make a much bigger impact on the health of this community than leaving it to a municipality-by-municipality approach. In light of recent moves by the federal government, I believe that the province has a mandate and a responsibility to pass complementary legislation to the two federal bills to ensure that the protection offered by those bills applies to the people of Ontario as well. Unfortunately, and most surprisingly, the provincial government is still dragging its feet on this issue, and it is therefore up to private members, such as yourself, to take on this responsibility.”

Unfortunately, previous experience with Bill 3 and its forerunner, Bill 71 as it was known at that time, and with this government, has led me to believe that such a measure would not meet with success. Instead, I have chosen to go with my second-best option and allow municipalities to address the smoke-in-the-workplace issue on an individual basis. After all, half a loaf is better than none.

I would now like to address my comments to Bill 157 directly. The essence of this bill is quite simple, in that it will enable a local council of any municipality to pass bylaws with respect to smoking in the workplace. The bill also allows a municipality to appoint inspector to enforce the act. Should an inspector be obstructed in his or her duties, the inspector may apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to enter into the workplace.

As well, the bill enables the local council of a municipality to pass bylaws prohibiting or regulating smoking in enclosed public places. I have included this particular

section in the bill as I feel there continues to exist some confusion in municipalities with respect to their ability to enact nonsmoking bylaws for public areas. While I believe that the right currently exists for municipalities to pass this kind of bylaw, including it in my bill can only add the weight of specific provincial approval for those hesitant to proceed in this direction.

This bill does not require a municipality to adopt this legislation, but it offers it the opportunity if it should so desire. This is necessary if municipalities are going to legislate in the area of the workplace, for they do not have that power at this time.

To date, this assembly has passed three pieces of enabling legislation to do essentially the same as my bill does. The city of Toronto, the city of Etobicoke and the town of Markham now have the ability to enact workplace smoking bylaws. In view of the government’s passage of these bills, one must assume it is supportive of this type of legislation. I congratulate the government of Ontario on allowing this initiative to these progressive municipalities. It should be noted, however, that other municipalities are eagerly knocking on the province’s door for similar legislation. I shall refer to this issue later.

What of the remaining municipalities? There are over 800 other municipalities. What protection is afforded to workers in these communities with respect to smoking in the workplace? In a word, none. They do not have any rights with regard to being protected from secondhand smoke in the workplace.

I perceive this to be an injustice for a number of reasons. If the luxury of a smoke-free workplace is available to workers in Toronto, why is it not also available to those in Kanata, Cumberland, Timmins, Trenton or Timiskaming. Should not these communities have the option open to them as well?

Many municipalities, particularly smaller ones, do not have the time, expertise or financial resources to create a private bill to offer the province to try to seek the approval of this Legislature so that they can have this power. Should these municipal councils lose out on the opportunity to protect their workers because or these inabilities?

The answer to these questions is obvious, which is why I hope all members of this assembly will support my bill and rectify this explicit injustice.

Across this country, only 22 municipalities have workplace smoking bylaws. The majority of these occur in British Columbia and Alberta. In Ontario, we have one functioning bylaw in the city of Toronto, with two more to come on board in the new year. Members may also be aware that a number of municipalities are awaiting provincial guidance on this issue. Many communities would rejoice to hear the government indicate it is going to enact provincial legislation on this matter, but I suspect that will be a long wait, as my Bill 71 died on the order paper awaiting third reading, and I fear the same fate awaits Bill 3 which is a sequel to Bill 71.

I sincerely hope the bill we are discussing today does not suffer from the same degree of neglect. While this initiative is necessary for the convenience of the municipalities, it is also necessary for another important reason. For some inexplicable reason, tobacco use appears to be on the increase. Statistics Canada figures show that for the first eight months of 1988, overall tobacco sales in Canada are up by almost one percentage point. Until this year, the change experienced has been one of decline. In previous years, the decline has been in the area of two per cent, three per cent or four per cent. A reverse in this trend is frightening for the health of Canadians.

Recently, we experienced in the east a toxic mussel scare. It elicited tremendous public and tremendous government reaction. Yet today, on November 10, 35 people to 40 people will die prematurely by seven years due to the ill effects of tobacco.

It is not being dealt with in a serious manner by this province at this time. It is a matter that should be dealt with in a serious manner. Unfortunately, in Canada, 1988 will be a landmark year -- unfortunately, because tragically, more women will die in 1988 as a result of lung cancer than will die of breast cancer. Tobacco is the greatest single cause of lung cancer. Approximately 90 per cent of people who contract lung cancer have it as a result of tobacco use.

Tobacco contributes greatly to heart disease, throat cancer, esophageal cancer and respiratory diseases. In North America every year, there are 350,000 smoking-related deaths. Those figures are hard to ignore. We do not know if it is the nicotine or one of the remaining 49 toxic gases, particles or liquids found in cigarettes that creates the poison that takes hold of an individual and draws that life to a close prematurely. We do know that nicotine is addictive, and that once addicted it becomes very difficult for an individual to break that addiction. I know of no other legal substance that has such devastating effects when used as directed.

The issue that cuts to the very heart of this bill is the issue of secondhand smoke. While reducing the opportunity to smoke in the workplace may assist some smokers in their attempt to break their addiction, this bill is primarily aimed at the nonsmokers, to protect them from sidestream or secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke is more than a nuisance for nonsmokers in their place of employment. It is a health hazard, which for the most must simply be endured as there is no recourse for the employee who suffers from it. One cannot walk away from one’s job quite so easily as one could leave a smoke-filled restaurant.

The effects of secondhand smoke have been well documented. In this age of hypersensitivity, more and more individuals are becoming allergic to many of the airborne pollutants and chemicals we are forced to breathe each day. Respiratory ailments are no longer uncommon. The most common hazards of secondhand smoke include headaches, runny eyes and nose, coughs, nausea, a worsening of allergies, breathing difficulties, respiratory illness, and yes, even lung cancer; all this without mentioning the effect of smoke on the unborn.

Each year, 5,500 nonsmokers die in North America as a result of secondhand smoke. We must reduce, or at least reverse, this unacceptable death toll rate.

Secondhand smoke is both bothersome and hazardous. Individuals should not have to make employment choices; that is, to work or not to work on the basis of air quality in their offices. If individuals will not look to the health cause, then employers should be looking to the economic costs of workplace smoking, for it is a costly venture.

Studies have shown that smokers miss twice as much work as their nonsmoking colleagues. Smokers have twice the accident rate of nonsmokers. The smoking employee wastes up to 30 minutes per day lighting up. What is the cost to the employer? On a general average basis, approximately $5,000 per year per smoker. Now add this to the increased health care costs from smoking, the property damage as a result of careless smoking, and most of all the loss of the individuals who suffer death as a result of smoking, and you get a total of $5.2 billion in Canada a year lost to this habit of smoking in the workplace.

Combine the health and economic costs with the fact that 70 per cent of the population does not smoke and I believe members will see the necessity, at the very least of workplace smoking bylaws. If we can focus in on this one area of the entire smoking issue and effect a change there, then we may be able to encourage people to reduce their tobacco intake. We may even save some lives in the process. This, I feel, is a goal worth striving for.

Perhaps the best part of this initiative, Bill 157, is that it is not new. In fact, the concept has been proved effective by the city of Toronto; it is tried and true. They, in effect, were the guinea-pig to determine the effectiveness of this type of legislation and the experiment is working.

Workers are not rioting in the streets as some might have suggested. Employers are working with their employees to find effective and flexible smoking policies for their individual workplaces. To give you an example of how it has worked here in Toronto, the city has received 263 official complaints that it has had to investigate. Only one out of the 263 has actually been prosecuted in court. This means that 262 official complaints were settled amicably between the employer and his or her employees.

In addition, there have been thousands of telephone inquiries on this issue. Interestingly enough, many phone calls have been made on this issue by provincial government employees who are located in the city of Toronto, but who are not covered by this legislation. Keep in mind that the city of Toronto has over 50,000 workplaces and in excess of a half-million employees to contend with, and yet there was only one instance of noncompliance in all of the city of Toronto in the first eight months of this being in place.

There are many municipalities, as I mentioned, that are knocking on the door. There are many employees across this province who are not covered by this particular legislation.

I notice with a certain degree of disappointment and regret that the provincial government’s plans for creating a smoking ban in provincial offices has missed its September 1 deadline. I sincerely hope this is not an indication of their interest in this entire question. I know that the former Minister of Health who is now the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston) will not renege on his promise to more than 84,000 civil servants in Ontario in many government offices across our province. I would think that he and the present Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) would certainly see the value of my proposed legislation.

Finally, the members representing areas like the city of Ottawa, the city of Windsor, the city of North York, the city of Scarborough and the city of Hamilton should take a moment to listen to their local councils. I think they will find this is one responsibility they are now willing to take on in lack of provincial action. We have a choice today to pass this bill or we can go the very expensive and time-consuming route which has been travelled on three previous occasions by Toronto, Etobicoke and Markham.

To conclude this portion of my remarks, I would like to briefly mention a few groups and organizations that have offered their support to my endeavours with regard to smoking over the past three years. They include the Ontario Lung Association; the Canadian Heart Foundation; Physicians For A Smoke-Free Canada; the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario division; the Non-Smokers’ Rights Association and countless thousands of individuals. In fact, I presented a petition in the last parliament on behalf of over 30,000 individuals who have written to me indicating their appreciation for action that I have taken on behalf of this smoking issue.

I sincerely hope that on this occasion my endeavours will prove more fruitful than in the past. Individuals in Ontario should have the freedom to smoke, but they do not have the right to pollute the air of others.

Mr Miller: I am pleased to rise this morning to take

part in the debate on private member’s Bill 157,

An Act to authorize Municipalities to pass By-laws respecting Smoking in the Workplace and in Enclosed Public Places. I have long admired the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) for the sincere concern he has often demonstrated for the rights of nonsmokers. I want to make it clear to that member and to all other members in this House that I have no problem with the principle of this bill, just its method.

I represent the riding of Norfolk, where the production of tobacco represents an important part of the local economy. Like anyone in business, tobacco farmers have to be able to predict and assess in a reasonable way what forces will shape the market environment in which they have to sell their product. In Ontario, this process is aided by the Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board, but the overall demand for their product is slipping.

This bill, should it become law, would place the tobacco farmers and those communities dependent upon tobacco production in the position of not knowing when or where such a bylaw would be enacted. There would be no consistency in action, no consistency in standards and no consistency in the effect upon tobacco growers, their families and communities.

The members of this House who represent ridings where tobacco growing is an important economic activity know all too well that the tobacco growing industry is not in the best shape at the present time. Since 1982, tobacco production in Ontario has dropped nearly 50 per cent. The number of Ontario tobacco farmers has dropped from 2,500 to 1,500.

All in all, the tobacco industry is experiencing an annual market decline of approximately five per cent, and this is projected to continue for the next three or few years. Revenue from tobacco taxes is down $15 million, according to the Treasurer’s second quarterly report for 1988-89.

Eighty per cent of all tobacco grown in Canada is grown within 50 kilometres of the town of Delhi in my riding. Only a few weeks ago, the Dibcom Tobacco Processor Ltd. plant in that community shut down. The result is that 25 full-time jobs and 200 seasonal jobs have disappeared from a town of 4,500 people.

I am sure I do not need to emphasize that a job loss of this magnitude means a great deal to a small community. The tobacco-related workforce in the riding of Norfolk and in other tobacco growing regions across the province is real people. Some of them are without jobs now. More will be without work over the next few years and many will face multiple layoffs. This bill says nothing as to how to help these people adjust to the new reality which confronts them.

This kind of inconsistent, piecemeal approach to regulating smoking in the workplace is not fair to the employees of Ontario, nor is it fair to the tobacco farmers of the communities who depend upon this industry for their survival. What is needed is a uniform and consistently applied set of regulations which do not differ from town to town or from city to city. Then at least the farmer would know where he stands.

The government of Ontario, on the other hand, has been approaching the downsizing of the tobacco industry in a sensitive and rationale way.

The government of Ontario was instrumental in establishing the three-year accord, including $15 million for funding the tobacco assistance program. This program has led to an orderly and a compassionate restructuring of the tobacco production sector. The government of Ontario continues to provide a broad array of programs to help tobacco growers. These programs include research services, the transition crop team and market development assistance, especially considering the export market. I will not mention the extensive programs available to all farmers.

In addition to the practical economic question, which this bill fails to address, there is also the issue of the rights of smoking workers. There is the larger question of workplace air quality. A recent study of air quality was done in a number of Ottawa offices where smoking was not regulated. It showed that the exposure to environmental tobacco smoke by nonsmokers in office environments was very low. In fact, a person would have to spend 260 straight hours in such an office environment to be exposed to the equivalent environmental tobacco smoke in one cigarette.

I know that in my own office, where we have no outside air to recirculate, you are breathing somebody else’s air, recycled air. I think a lot of effort has to be put into changing that so that at least people have the opportunity of breathing fresh air from the outside.

I recognize that workplace smoking regulations impinge upon a complex set of conflicting values and perceived individual rights, and I feel I must point out that tobacco remains a legal product in this country. As long as it remains a legal product, its use must be a matter of choice and the rights of those who choose to use this product must also be recognized. Again I must say that this bill does nothing to accommodate the rights of the smokers, and I will say nonsmokers as well, because it is very imprecise as to where a person may smoke if he so wishes.

There is not a word in this bill referring to a designated smoking area. This kind of omission is a disservice, as I said, to smokers and nonsmokers alike.

To continue my remarks on this bill, I want to reiterate that this bill would serve only to make planning more difficult for the farmer. At least the committee process allows other points of view to be heard before legislation is brought forward for second and third reading. If this bill were passed, I feel that the rights of a minority, smokers, would be ignored.

I think the most basic flaw with this bill is that it is modelled on a very specific piece of legislation that was developed for a particular community, in this case the town of Markham. I do not mean to belittle the town of Markham, and I have nothing but respect for the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens), but I believe, and I am sure even the member would agree, that what is good for Markham may not necessarily be good for Ontario.

I do not intend to support the bill. I believe our government is capable of bringing in a bill dealing with the smoking issue that would be fairer to everyone in Ontario.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to welcome you to your role in the chair, sir. I look forward to being put in my place by you, as I have been by so many others in that chair over the years.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. B. Rae: I knew that would get some support from members.

I am delighted to speak in the debate today. I want to start by saying that I think there is considerable merit in the arguments that have been made both by the member for Carleton and by the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller).

There is a reality, however, that we have to come to terms with: Tobacco kills people. There is no other way to put it. You can dance around it all you want. You can think of all the things that one can say about cigarettes or the numbers of warnings that we put on packages of cigarettes, but we have an incredible problem. We have a substance that for cultural reasons has been part of our way of life. All of us are obviously affected by tobacco. We have a habit that is culturally sanctioned, that is widely advertised and that is economically important.

The member for Norfolk has spoken very movingly and consistently in this House on behalf of his constituents, and if any one of us represented his riding, we would be doing precisely the same thing, pointing out that people who have been producing tobacco are losing income, losing their farms, losing their way of life, and the regional economy in southwestem Ontario is obviously very much affected by this change.

Mr. Miller: It is a legal product.

Mr. B. Rae: And, as the member says in raising it with me, it is a legal product. He is quite right in saying that; it is a legal product. This is why in our party we have argued as follows. It is obviously unrealistic to ban tobacco or to make it illegal as a product at the present time. Obviously, because of the extent of the habit and because it is in many respects essentially a private habit, it would be absurd to carry out a ban making the substance and the production of that substance illegal.

I want to add, though, that it does not just end there. What we have to do is to recognize, and I think this government should recognize much more clearly and forthrightly than it has, that tobacco kills.

Mr. Miller: What doesn’t?

Mr. B. Rae: I will be glad to engage in an argument with the member for Norfolk, but the reality is that the evidence from the United States, from the United Kingdom, from Canada, from the World Health Organization, from around the world is absolutely overwhelming: Tobacco is addictive. The smoking of tobacco, the chewing of tobacco and the sniffing of tobacco are habits that are addictive and they are habits that can kill. The evidence is overwhelming in terms of the relationship to lung cancer, the relationship to heart disease. Those are facts.

What we have proposed is that while this reality should be at the forefront of the government’s policy with respect to health, at the same time those who are now engaged in the production of this substance, who are going to be affected by an aggressive and effective government policy with respect to smoking, should be compensated. They must be compensated and they must be compensated in a generous and effective way.

I would suggest to the member that he can do, and I know he will do, as much as possible for his constituents by saying, “Don’t make the tobacco farmers of this province exclusively pay the price for what is surely now, every one of us would agree, firmly on the public health agenda.”

That is the issue. The issue is not, I would suggest to the member, getting into an argument. I have had this argument with workers in the cigarette factories in Guelph and in Toronto. We start talking about it and I say, “Look, the difficulty that all of us are in is that we do know that tobacco is a noxious substance, it is a toxic substance and it causes death.” They say, “Well, we don’t know; all the facts aren’t in” -- you know, all the arguments one has heard ever since the 1950s, when studies first began to be done about the effects of tobacco.

My argument has been, consistently, with those men and women who are not that highly paid and who are devastatedly affected by this change in our society, let’s focus on the issue of compensation. Let’s increase substantially the amount per cigarette that Ontario collects in taxes. We now collect in Ontario --

Mr. Miller: More taxes are not the answer, so long as tobacco is a legal product and people smoke. It will drive them to roll-your-own smoking, as in the 1930s.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: I am happy to be heckled by the member for Norfolk, and I do not mind it. I know the extent of his feelings on this subject and I know the kind of difficulties he is facing in his own constituency, and I respect him for that. But if I may, let me put forward my point of view.

I am speaking now as a private member but also obviously as leader of our party, I feel very strongly that we should be increasing the taxes on cigarettes. I think we should be increasing the taxes per cigarette. Ontario now has the lowest taxation per cigarette, at 2.83 cents, of any jurisdiction in Canada. That is a disgrace.

We should be using that money to do two things. We should be setting that money aside from an increase in revenues. We should be setting that money aside to do two things. First of all, we should compensate those who are working in the tobacco industry, farmers and people who are working in cigarette factories. Second, we should be dealing directly with a much more aggressive campaign on the effect of cigarettes on health, than we have done.

I say to the member for Norfolk, I am fed up with the statistics that show that young women are increasingly turning to smoking. I am fed up with advertising which shows smoking to be a trendy and acceptable habit. I am fed up with walking into all kinds of environments and finding young people still turning to cigarettes because they think it is the fashionable thing to do. Those kids do not know today what we know because they are not aware. We have taken for granted the fact that cigarettes cause lung cancer. We said, “Oh, that was news in 1958 and 1959 when the US Surgeon General began to talk about it.” But the kids today do not know about it.

There are two other points that I want to make. One is that I support the bill with respect to bylaws and the enforcement of bylaws. Again, it is an example where the municipalities, and if I may say so local boards of health, have been ahead of this government in moving on this question of public health and the impact that it is having in the workplace. I think it is worthy of support.

The last point I want to make is that I have talked today about the effect that smoking has on health. I want to say that I think it is time this province looked hard and long at the need for a universal sickness and accident plan which would provide effective disability benefits and disability payments for those whose lives have been devastated by cancer and by heart disease caused by smoking.

All of us in this House know that a number of times we have had arguments with the Workers’ Compensation Board because we have not been able to prove that a lung cancer, a stomach cancer or some other kind of cancer is related to the workplace. Many times the doctors at the board say: “Was this guy a smoker? If he was a smoker, we have no way of knowing whether the cancer came from the workplace or from tobacco.”

They are right, technically speaking. That is why I want to say, talking about crusades, it is time we had a crusade in this province for a universal sickness and accident plan that would provide disability benefits for all those who are affected by sickness and illness, regardless of cause. I think we should be taking this debate that we are having today, the debate on car insurance and the debate that we are having on workers’ compensation, and putting them into this new perspective that we have in this party, that it is high time that Ontario had a universal sickness and accident plan that would provide compensation for all those who are the victims of illness, sickness and accidents.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to join in this debate on Bill 157 and would like first of all to give credit to the member for Carleton, who has been a crusader and who has been a person who has been fighting in a most genuine way in defence of the whole society which we are trying to represent, that is to help protect our society from the hazards and problems related to smoking.

My friend the member for Carleton has presented a case here this morning that I am surprised even the member for Norfolk, a man for whom I have very high regard and great respect, has not found he is able to support. The only question I would ask the member for Norfolk is whether the member puts profit ahead of health. That really becomes the concern.

Mr. Miller: That is not true.

Mr. Cousens: I did not hear the member say that. Maybe we should give him extra time to comment on that. In the meantime, I am especially pleased that our friend the member for Carleton has made such an excellent case for this bill.

An identical bill has already been passed by this Legislature in a private member’s bill that I presented on May 24, 1988, Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting the Town of Markham. This bill we are now looking at today, which is Bill 157, is identical to that. I could not have put together Bill Pr20 without the assistance and support of the member for Carleton, so I am especially pleased that he has been able to bring it forward. He has been the leader in our caucus and I think across Ontario in this crusade, and it is in that respect that I am pleased to support him on it.

When I became interested in this bill, it had to do with one person. She more than any other woke up the community of Markham to the need for some legislation. Her name is Donna Bush. I would like to read into the record the presentation she made to the town of Markham. She said:

“My name is Donna Bush and I am a resident of the town of Markham. I have been on medical leave of absence from my workplace, which is an international corporation, for the past 18 months. The reason for my medical leave is a disease called asthma. My asthma began over four years ago when I was subjected to secondhand smoke at the workplace. My extreme sensitivity to secondhand smoke has brought me close to death on a number of occasions. Although there is no cure for my disease, I must rely on medication for the rest of my life.

“There is only one course of action that will enable me to get back to work. That action is to obtain enabling legislation that will allow the town of Markham to pass a bylaw to regulate smoking in the workplace.

“I have been working on this issue within the town of Markham since 1986, and am here representing the vast majority of people in Markham. They are comprised of students, senior citizens, business owners, people from many varied occupations, nonsmokers and smokers alike. The nonsmokers are suffering from secondhand smoke and the smokers are suffering from nicotine addiction. Both groups have one thing in common and that is the desire for health protection. This health protection is something that is not voluntarily forthcoming from most of our employers.”

She goes go on in her presentation, but I just know there are more Donna Bushes out there, not only in the riding of Markham but across the province of Ontario. Who knows, there may be a person similar to Donna Bush in the riding of Norfolk. People like that are only asking for the protection that is their due. Therefore, I am pleased to see the bill before us now, Bill 157, will have an application across the entire province for those municipalities that want to do something with it.

I think many people are not aware of just how limited existing legislation is and why it is essential that the province begin now to look at this bill. Without this legislation being passed by the province, a municipality in the province of Ontario is limited in its efforts to prohibit or regulate smoking in public places and has no specific legal authority to control smoking in the workplace.

The Municipal Act, RSO 1980,

chapter 302, as amended, gives a municipality certain powers to regulate smoking.

Section 104 provides in part, “Every council may pass such bylaws and make such regulations for the health, safety, morality and welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality in matters not specifically provided for by this act as may be deemed expedient and are not contrary to law.” This

section has been used by municipalities on various occasions to deal with matters that were not specifically referred to in the Municipal Act.

The courts view this

section with some suspicion and have tended to give it a very narrow

interpretation. A municipality would use this

section as a last resort only if it could not find more specific authority elsewhere in the Municipal Act.

Paragraph 134 of

section 210 states, “Bylaws may be passed by the councils of local municipalities...for prohibiting and abating public nuisances.” Again, the power given to a municipality to use this

section to control smoking is general in nature. A municipality would have to prove that smoking in public places is a public nuisance.

Paragraph 27 of

section 210 is the only reference in the Municipal Act which gives a municipality specific rights to regulate smoking. It reads as follows, “Bylaws may be passed by the councils of local municipalities...for regulating smoking in retail shops in which 10 or more persons are employed, or in any class or classes thereof, and for prohibiting smoking in such shops or any class or classes thereof, or in any part or parts thereof.”

While it is specific, it is limited in scope, and does not address the numerous situations that can be encountered with smoking in public places, in malls, in plazas and in particular in the workplace.

With this bill, and the bill is identical to the one in Markham, we are looking at a subject which has been characterized, certainly in Markham, as a public nuisance, in that exhaled smoke and smoke from idling cigarettes are a health hazard.

Markham also stated in its own

preamble to its existing bylaws that it is desirable for the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Markham to provide for regulating smoking.

For a municipality to successfully defend the challenge to a smoking bylaw based on a public nuisance or a health hazard, a municipality must prove that smoking is both of those things. That is to say, it must be both a public nuisance and a health hazard. The courts have held that a municipality cannot constitute

an act a public nuisance by simply designating it as such. The act must in fact be a public nuisance. As stated earlier, the courts have given a very narrow

interpretation to

section 104 and there would be an obligation on the part of the municipality, if challenged, to show that a smoking regulation bylaw passed under this

section was passed in order to protect the health, safety, morality and welfare of the inhabitants.

Rather than confront these obstacles, the town of Markham proposed its own legislation, and that is why the member for Carleton has proposed this general legislation for the whole province, to give specific authority to any municipality that wants it to prohibit and regulate smoking in public places.

What we are really talking about is a subject that affects all those people in the province of Ontario when they are electing councils this coming Monday. Maybe what they should have done is asked those councillors during the municipal election process, “What would you do if we as a council had the opportunity to institute this kind of regulation within the workplace and within the community at large?” I would hope that many communities would rise to the challenge, even without that opportunity being raised now prior to municipal elections, to say: “Yes, we are going to do something about it.

We are grateful that the province has given the leadership. The province has now put the laws in place so that we as municipalities are not going to be threatened with possible legal action against us by virtue of having taken a strong action to protect the nonsmoker in the workplace.”

This is an important bill and I trust it will receive full support from this House.

Mrs. LeBourdais: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak for this particular bill, which I wholeheartedly support. It is, in fact, one for which I have waited with bated breath -- bated due to the all-too-frequent smoke-filled workplace, where fresh, breatheable air is too often at a premium.

Every member of this House should be aware that the member for Carleton takes the issue of smoking and its effects upon the public health very seriously, as do I and many of my colleagues. Since my coming to the Legislature a short year and a half ago, my first office was formerly the member from Carleton’s office, so I thank him for providing me with a smoke-free workplace. I also turned it over as a smoke-free workplace to the new incumbent in that office.

The time has now come, however, to take another step forward and support measures to enhance the reduction of tobacco smoke in the workplace. It is by no means the only contaminant from which we have to safeguard ourselves, but it is the most prevalent and to my way of thinking the greatest irritant.

Although I am a nonsmoker, I am not without sympathy for the difficulties faced by the chronic smoker who is subjected to additional stresses and strain when working in a smoke-free environment. For this reason, I wholeheartedly support any and all programs which assist individuals in overcoming their addiction in a manner which will make the withdrawal process a more bearable one both for them and for us.

I believe this bill attempts to balance concerns of smokers and nonsmokers by enabling the employer to allow smoking in designated smoking areas. While this bill will empower the employer to allow smoking in the workplace, consultation with employees may want to be more strongly encouraged. Simply digging in our heels and storming out in righteous indignation is not the answer.

While I support the accommodation of smokers, as the smoking area is set out to provide, I would encourage a degree of restriction on the size of such areas. The point must still be made that smoking is to be discouraged in the workplace, where it has for all too long infringed on the clean air space of fellow workers.

For all too long, those of us who are nonsmokers have been made to feel that we are difficult or spoilsports if we voice an objection to those around us smoking in close proximity while we sit with burning and often tear-filled eyes and return home with clothes reeking of tobacco smoke.

Although it is part of the desire to encourage the accommodation of nonsmokers, this bill does not require structural alterations, thus making it easier for employers to accommodate nonsmokers. I would hope that in construction of new buildings or the reconstruction of existing facilities appropriate designs would be put in place that would ensure completely separated spaces and adequate ventilation. Just as we have now learned to accommodate the physically disabled, we must also learn to engineer our buildings so that they accommodate smokers and nonsmokers alike.

I am pleased to make note that some 60 municipalities, which include the vast majority of the province’s population, have already endorsed smoking bylaws with the support of their respective communities. The system is working and thereby ensuring a healthier workplace environment for smokers and nonsmokers alike.

As members well know, my government supports the municipal option in certain other jurisdictions and although this bill supports the municipal option, I would hope that in future legislation covering this area would be province-wide. Air space is not something you can cordon off.

Smoking is a major cause of ill health, disability and premature death. This is all the more tragic because it is preventable. The effects of smoking are well documented and well publicized, but I still want to review some of the statistics.

Thirty per cent of cancer and coronary heart disease deaths are directly attributable to smoking. Overall death rates for smokers are 13 to 17 times higher than those for nonsmokers. It has been estimated that an average of five and a half minutes of life are lost for each cigarette smoked.

Awareness of the health consequences of smoking is not limited to nonsmokers, however. In fact, surveys show that smokers and nonsmokers alike are nearly equally supportive of restrictions on smoking in the workplace. This general acknowledgement of the health consequences of smoking among both smokers and nonsmokers, as well as the increasing evidence which demonstrates the linkage between secondary tobacco smoke or environmental tobacco smoke as it is sometimes called, and the health of nonsmokers has given rise to new concerns and demands for restrictions on smoking in workplaces.

As a result, workplace smoke restriction policies are becoming more commonplace and none too soon. Historically, smoking restrictions were imposed for safety, security or productivity reasons. Today, however, the motivation is more likely to be related to concerns for highly sensitive computer equipment and the demands of nonsmokers for a smoke-free workplace.

As the number of nonsmokers in this province continues to increase, we in this Legislature must take a leading role and must reflect this change in society’s attitude to smoke in the workplace, and I think we can start with our respective east and west lobbies as soon as possible.

We are not dragging our feet but rather saying that through thorough and thoughtful deliberation we will address the issue in a manner that will fulfil the commitment of the Minister of Health to provide a direction towards healthier lifestyles while showing a certain sensitivity to those for whom smoking is a long-standing addiction that is difficult to overcome.

Tobacco companies themselves know that the writing is on the wall. Most have already begun diversifying their investments into other areas or, regrettably, targeting our youth, particularly young girls, and also targeting Third World countries where the marketplace is less sophisticated and less well informed on the hazards of smoking. Farmers must look to that diversification by the tobacco companies and plan to diversify themselves and to start now. A major cigarette firm has used the phrase, “You’ve come a long way, baby” to suggest that women who smoke have made great strides in emulating men, including their cigarette intake.

Mr. Wildman: What man would refer to himself as “baby”?

Mrs. LeBourdais: The odd one.

Interjections.

Mrs. LeBourdais: None has taken great steps, if that is the only advancement we can allude to. Only when we have butted out on that last weed can we already claim that “Baby, we’ve now come a long way,” but as yet we still have a long way to go.

It has always surprised me that often in discussions with young mothers when I myself had a young child, as I would sit in their living rooms and they would be talking about all the plans they have for their young children, about the way they are going to educate them, the way they are going to train them, the motives they are going to try to implant in their children, etc., all the while they are smoking and that smoke drifts over their children. This kind of nonsense has to stop. Again, I fully support the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Would any honourable member like to speak? There are about two minutes left before the response.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the fact that I have the opportunity to participate in this debate and to support the resolution that my colleague has put forward.

I would not characterize myself as a militant nonsmoker. However, I must say --

Mr. Mahoney: Just militant.

Mr. Wildman: Militant, yes. I must say, though, that as a person who does not smoke I have found it encouraging over the last few years to find that there seems to be in the adult population fewer and fewer people smoking in public places. We find in our transportation facilities, for instance, the situation where now there is no longer much opportunity for people to smoke. That is true also in many shopping centres and other public places.

I am concerned, though, about the fact that it seems that more and more young people are smoking at earlier ages. This is particularly true, it appears from the statistics, among young women. I think that somehow, besides moving this kind of a resolution, everyone in this House would agree that we must concentrate on more education programs to educate our young people so that we are not just setting restrictions on where people can smoke but encouraging people by giving them the proper information to make the choices that are necessary for their own good health.

I support the resolution. I commend the member for bringing it forward. I understand his feelings on this subject and I will be supporting the resolution when it comes to a vote.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to thank all members who have participated in this debate and who have listened to the debate today.

The smoking of tobacco products is probably the most preventable cause of disease that we have in Ontario and Canada. If we could convince people in Ontario and Canada to stop smoking today, then as time progressed we would have, with today’s population, 32,000 fewer deaths in a given year. Young people who are here today in the gallery should know that if they take up the habit of smoking, 35 to 40 people will die prematurely by seven years from when they would have died.

Not many of the young people of Ontario are getting that message, unfortunately, and they are taking up the habit of smoking. Smoking is a problem because it is addictive. In other words, once they start, many people cannot stop that habit during all of their lifetime.

I only want to say in reply to my good friend the member for Norfolk, who represents many tobacco producers, that this legislation, in itself, does not stand alone. It does not provide compensation for tobacco producers. I agree with the member of the New Democratic Party when he says there should be increased compensation for these people. There should be retraining programs not only for producers who are farming this product but also for those who are involved in the production and manufacture of it.

I just want to read from a letter, if I have a few moments, from a woman in Ottawa-Carleton:

“I have had health problems for some time due to secondhand smoke at work. I need and like my job, but it has become obvious that if the quality of air does not improve soon, I will have to resign. I feel strongly that being forced to choose between my job and my health is an unacceptable ultimatum.”

FEDERAL HOUSING POLICY

Mr. J. B. Nixon moved resolution 49:

That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government should be condemned for its inadequate housing policy and its failure to co-operate with other levels of government in the production and preservation of housing stock.

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

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I would like to reserve the balance of my time after I have spoken for my windup.

A satisfactory housing policy that produces and preserves housing stock for all Canadians is a goal we expect from all three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. No one level of government can solve this problem. All three levels of government can solve the problem if they work in partnership.

Few activities in society are as influenced by government as shelter. “Property,” said Jeremy Bentham a long time ago, “is entirely the work of law, and when I say that, I mean property does not exist without law.”

Property relationships are legal relationships created by government. Municipalities zone land by law, service land by law and give permits by law. Provinces provide social housing by law, implement rent control and provide subsidies by law. The federal government also provides social housing by law and, through macroeconomic policy, determines the mortgage rate and the availability of capital, all by law.

I suggest that all three levels of government have to collaborate in a great national effort to ensure that a civilized country like Canada has an adequate housing policy.

On what principles, I ask, should this policy be based?

First, adequate shelter is a right, not a luxury. If shelter is not available, individuals should have a claim against society to provide that right. This right is at risk in Canada today.

Second, beyond providing a minimum level of adequate shelter, a democracy should strive to maximize the range of housing choice available to individuals. Individual circumstances change, and the housing market must be flexible to meet those changing needs. The housing market is close to failing this test. There are not enough affordable units for renters and there is not enough medium-priced housing for those who want to buy. In some metropolitan areas, housing choices are narrowing, not expanding.

Third, a democracy must provide a minimum level of shelter for its citizens and it should create the conditions conducive to providing the widest possible amount of individual choice. However, a democracy requires something further: a large core of property-owning citizens. A society with a balance of property holders increases liberty, distributes wealth and reduces dependence. Ownership of a home gives a citizen a stake in the community. In theory, a democracy can exist without a property-owning middle class, but precious few do. Ownership should be as important a goal of housing policy as social equity.

On the one hand, the government’s most important task is to prevent extreme inequality of wealth, not by taking extreme wealth away from those who possess it but by removing the barriers to accumulating wealth; not by building the poorhouses of the 19th century, but by protecting citizens from becoming poor.

On the other hand, there are conservatives who allege the right of property as the most sacred of all rights of citizens and more important in certain aspects than freedom itself. But, in fact, a liberal society goes further than establishing rights to property. It goes further by ensuring that the means of exercising those property rights are available to all citizens.

Individual rights without individual power are meaningless. A truly liberal society will ensure individual empowerment so that individuals can use their legal rights to assert their individual being within society. As a liberal society we go beyond bare articulation of individual rights by giving working men and working women an economic stake in the community over which democracy can give them political control.

For the average family, the only significant investment in their lives is in their home. It is for that reason that 40 per cent of all personal savings in Canada, or $682 billion, has been invested in housing. That is the measure of individual commitment to family housing. Trying to collectively manage the growth of an urban colossus like Metropolitan Toronto with 3.5 million people is a supremely ambitious task. Trying to provide relief to those thousands of individual Ontarians who pay more than 30 per cent of their income for shelter is a very expensive proposition.

Trying to balance the intricate market relationships of supply, demand and a collective affordability is a policy problem of immense proportions. It is a challenge to all Canadians and for all their levels of government, whether they be federal, provincial and municipal; and if collectively Canadians cannot achieve the democratic requirement of adequate shelter, who can?

The federal government, simply because it is the federal government, has broad controls over the tools of macroeconomic policy, which control and influence the housing market. If one examines the recent use of these tools by the federal government over the past few years, then one concludes that the federal government has been, at the very least, insensitive in its exercise of these economic tools upon the housing market.

Let me give members just four examples. First, the multiple-unit residential building tax incentive program, commonly known as the MURB program, which stimulated rental housing production by allowing individual investors the tax benefit of all investment in rental housing, has been cancelled.

Second, the registered home ownership savings plan, which allowed new home buyers a tax incentive to save the down payment for the purchase of their first-time home, has been eliminated. This means that the hard-to-save-for first-time home is harder to save for, and the federal government has made it so.

Third, the Bank of Canada’s high interest rate, which is supported by the federal Minister of Finance, adds annually thousands of dollars to the cost of first-time home buyer’s first-time mortgage and first-time mortgage financing.

Fourth, we already know that the beneficiaries of the federal government’s tax reform are the high-income earners. The victims of tax reform will be new home buyers, who will see the price of new homes rise by approximately nine per cent, according to the Canadian Home Builders’ Association. The Canadian home builders’ report, entitled A Bleak outlook in the New Housing Sector, concludes that this increased cost will put the possibility of buying a new home out of reach for some 60,000 potential first-time home buyers. The federal government’s proposal would impose an average monthly rent increase for new renters of new apartments of about 13 per cent.

At one time, the federal government was the driving force behind both market and social housing in this nation. In previous decades, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. was a vehicle for reform, but in Ontario today the federal government clearly takes a back seat to the province and to the municipalities. On the market side, the federal government does little more than insure mortgages. On the social side, Ottawa has, since 1985, decided to subsidize only the core needy, only the people with the very lowest incomes, and it does precious little of that.

In 1985, Toronto’s own Globe and Mail noted that the federal government cut its national allocation of 22,500 units of assisted housing to 20,000 that year. It was the beginning of a trend. It further noted that allocations for nonprofits -- both private nonprofits run by church groups, service groups and social agencies and nonprofit co-operatives -- totalled only 719 units in Metropolitan Toronto and York region,

whereas in 1981 to 1983 the federal government had averaged 2,377 annually, It concluded already in 1985 that the allocation for the Toronto area had dropped in two years to less than one third of what it was in 1982.

We should note in addition that until 1985, the federal government was the funding agency for private nonprofits and co-ops,

whereas the province was funding municipal housing units only. In 1986, a federal-provincial agreement dictated by the federal government prescribed that the federal government funding of the federal-provincial nonprofit program be cut from 90 per cent of each unit to 50 per cent of each unit. And if members think the situation was depressing in 1985, let’s carry it through three years to 1988.

In 1985-86, the federal government, as I said, funded 90 per cent of the federal-provincial program to build 5,178 units in Ontario. At that time the province, independently of the federal government, built 3,473 assisted rental housing units. This year, in 1988-89, the federal government will contribute only 50 per cent of an estimated 7,059 rental housing units. The province will pick up the other 50 per cent, not just 10 per cent as it did in 1984. In 1988-89, the province will fund, on its own, the construction of an estimated 11,125 assisted rental housing units. Thus, in four fiscal years, federal unit funding has decreased 32 per cent,

whereas provincial unit funding has increased 367 per cent.

Federal policies are strangling co-op housing projects, which are owned and run by the residents. Last year the federal government financed only 126 co-operative units in Metropolitan Toronto, earmarking just 37 of them for low-income earners.

It almost need not be said again: it is a pretty depressing story. It was said in the provincial government’s recent report entitled More Than Just a Roof: Action to End Homelessness in Ontario:

“The enormous social costs of failing to provide decent affordable housing for those who need it cannot be too strongly emphasized. Money spent to provide social services, employment training and education will have little or no impact on improving opportunities for low-income families unless their housing situation is secure. Our society will continue to spend vast amounts of money treating the effects of homelessness, without ever ministering to the cause.”

I can tell members this from very personal experience visiting some of the shelters in this city. I have met people, youths who are uneducated or short on education, who need skills training and who need medical attention. But they do not have a home, they do not have a telephone they can answer and give out when they are applying for a job, when they are looking for medical care, when they are looking for skills training. They know what they need: they need a place to stay; they need a home of whatever sort can be found.

Not only is the federal government cutting back on funds for social services, employment training and education but, more important for purposes of this debate, it is cutting back on funds for housing. No one knows how much land the federal government owns, but let’s be clear: the federal government is the biggest land owner in the country. Recent news reports by David Israelson of the Toronto Star confirm a source at Canada Post evaluating the total worth of Canada Post properties alone in the Metro area at a conservative $700 million.

What do we hear in June 1988 but that Canada Post is putting up prime real estate for sale at prime value. The notice read, “Canada Post Corp. is inviting proposals from proponents interested in developing a prime 38.7-acre site.”

These prime lands have been declared surplus to the operations of Canada Post. The surplus is being disposed of on the private market. None of the lands will be dedicated to assisted housing, affordable housing, co-op housing or any other form of affordable shelter.

Canada Post could transfer the real properties to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. for assisted housing initiatives. That is what the provincial ministry has asked for. The Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp. and the Ontario government protested to the federal government, saying it had a moral obligation to help the citizens who cannot afford current rents and housing prices, but to no avail. As of today, Canada Post’s strategy of profit maximization and the federal government’s lack of intervention to assert its social responsibility continue unabated.

When the federal government finally did release some surplus lands for housing, the lands at the Canadian Forces Base Downsview, it demonstrated no understanding of what it had embarked upon. There were no prior discussions with the province or the local municipality. There is no commitment to affordable housing on this site. The mayor of North York quite properly raised questions as to who is going to fund the incredible costs of the infrastructure. There were no prior discussions with the mayor as to the appropriateness of the location, the plan for development or the style of development that would occur.

These questions remain unanswered and the project remains in a vacuum for one single reason: a lack of federal government commitment to moving from the bald statement to the physical reality of affordable housing.

These simple promises cannot be delivered upon without hard work. A genuine partnership of federal, provincial and municipal governments must be built. The federal government has not committed to that.

Finally, and perhaps most important of all, there is the question of attitude. Problems do not solve themselves. People can begin to solve problems only when they believe there is a problem that needs a solution. Every member of this provincial Legislature knows there is a problem in the housing market. Traditionally, the federal government has been a partner and, indeed, a leader with the province in solving this problem. Many members will agree that the federal government has abandoned the partnership.

The federal government will not be a willing part of the solution until it acknowledges that there is a problem, yet look at its track record. Since 1984 there has been only a part-time Secretary of State (Housing) until recently, days before the election was called by the Prime Minister, the federal government appointed a minister. When asked about the homeless situation, Mr. McDermid said: “The homeless have shelter in Canada. They can always get off the street and find a warm place to sleep and be taken care of on a temporary basis.” I ask Mr. McDermid to tour some of our urban centres and tell me if that is true.

When asked about the federal government’s housing policy, he said, without a hint of doubt: “I feel very comfortable with the housing policy we have. We believe we are on the right track.” I say they are on the right track to more homeless and more inadequate housing policy.

When asked about shelter for street people, he said -- and members should listen to this, they will enjoy this one – “There is no excuse for anyone not finding a roof over their head. When we look at the so-called street people, it is not just the lack of hostels. Other factors are involved. Some of these people are free spirits and love to live that lifestyle.” I say tell that to the homeless.

Come election time, we do hear promises. The Prime Minister says, “In a country like ours it strikes me as completely offensive morally to have people sleeping on the bloody sidewalks.” Listen, I agree with the Prime Minister, but what has Mr. Mulroney done about it? Absolutely nothing. Mr. Mulroney says he has the answer. He had the answer when he said, “We all have to collaborate in a great national effort to ensure that this does not happen in a civilized country like Canada.”

Well, it is happening. It has happened. What has he done about it? Nothing. The federal government has done nothing to ensure that individuals have a range of housing choices and it has done nothing to assist individuals in the assertion of their right to exercise that choice. It is for these reasons that I ask this Legislature to join with me in a condemnation of the federal government for its inadequate housing policy and its failure to co-operate with other levels of government in the production and preservation of housing stock.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: I am going to support the resolution this morning, but I have a little apprehension here. I am taking a little tour on the wild side, I know, and I am hanging out this morning with a group of folks whose track record itself is not exactly immaculate.

I am going to set aside whatever differences I might have with this government and its approach to housing. I agree, basically, that them is no denying the historical fact that, about a decade or so ago, all three levels of government were interested in and active in, the area of providing decent housing for our citizens. Then, for reasons which escape me totally, the federal and the provincial governments, virtually at the same time, decided to abandon that as being anything that was their responsibility.

That meant for the other level of government, at the municipal level, the supply of new housing stock that was provided in any way, shape or form by a level of government was virtually crippled.

I know that in my riding, for two years, a building that was already up and was vacant was argued about, because CMHC could not decide which of their regional offices had the mortgage to this property. We wrote letters back and forth, as my federal member did; we visited with them, as they say; we talked with our community group, which was trying to put in a co-operative in an empty building; finally, we did find out that one office had the deed, and they transferred it to another office, so we were able to convert an empty building, which is actually quite a nice one, into a co-op unit.

But it took two years of argument and battle, and the resources of a federal member of Parliament and a provincial member of parliament, and a nonprofit co-op group in my community to make that happen. It was clear to us that the federal government was not on our side. They were our enemies. We battled with them.

I think there is a measure of truth here, that the federal government has lots of land. If they really wanted to, without providing direct funding, they could certainly guarantee a lot of mortgage money to build low-cost housing in Canada, if they chose to, but they do not. They could surely provide some assistance in startup costs, but they do not. They have the agencies in place that know all about real estate, development and building, and they could be a tremendous asset in trying to combat what many of us think is clearly a crisis; but they choose not to.

Now let me not pass without mentioning for a moment or two that the provincial government in Ontario cannot exactly throw a whole lot of rocks at the federal government. Granted it started from scratch a couple of years ago, granted the problems are not easy, but there are some things that I think the government should have accomplished by now. I think in three years’ time it should have been able to figure out just exactly how much land it owns. I do not think that is impossible.

I think that in three years’ time it could have figured out what works and what does not work, because in this country we have tried a lot of things, from what essentially might be called in some quarters bribing people to provide housing, to giving away money to people who had already bought a house, to allowing people to do tax write-offs on investments. We know that some of these things, however attractive they might have looked initially, do not work.

We also know what does work. We have enough experience now to know that when a level of government -- at any level -- sets its mind to providing affordable housing, it can do that. It can do that on a scale that is really quite impressive. If it really wanted to, the province of Ontario, by itself, could solve its own housing problem, but it does not want to. It owns 90 per cent of the land mass in the province. The putting together of land for housing is not its problem.

It has the ability to finance projects, not give the money directly, but lend its support, its financial weight to finance projects on a scale that absolutely boggles the mind. If you multiply that by 10, you have some concept of the ability of the federal government to be a participant in resolving this problem.

I want to conclude by saying that it is easy this morning -- and I hope we will have some such comment because it is fun -- to do numbers on the federal government for being absolutely, totally incompetent and part of the major problem that has created a housing crisis in Canada. We should not forget that. They do deserve to be booted around the block time and time again for living in mansions in Ottawa while people in Toronto live in cardboard boxes, because that is the truth.

Mr. Jackson: You mean the kind of house John Turner lives in?

Mr. Breaugh: It is true that John Turner lives in a similar kind of house in Ottawa.

Mr. Jackson: And in Toronto.

Mr. Breaugh: The only one who had to buy his own was Ed Broadbent.

Mr. Jackson: That is right.

Mr. Breaugh: But that is not the point. The point is that if we really wanted to solve a housing crisis, it is absolutely true that governments in this country could do so and they are choosing not to.

It is true that it will not work or it will be more difficult to do unless all the levels of government that we have participate. Unless they all get their act together and go in the same direction, it is not going to work.

It is fine for the brand-new federal Minister of Housing to announce rather grandly that a big chunk of property in Toronto is going to be made available for housing, but it is absolutely untrue to say that is going to happen unless he had the brains to talk to the mayor of that municipality, and he did not; and unless he had the common sense to talk to the provincial government and he did not. It is absolutely true that nothing is going to happen there for at least three, four or five years, if then. If the government wanted to, it could, but it is choosing not to.

I want to conclude by saying that it really is disgusting that there are enough people around with brains, knowledge and political experience, that we could resolve this problem, not overnight but in short order. It is sad to say that in this rich society, the people who drive around in the limousines do not give a damn about the people who live in cardboard boxes, but it is true. It is also true that people at the lower end of the economic scale are now seen to be the tax cows for governments. That is disgusting.

Is it not reasonable that the big corporations in the land ought to pay at least as much income tax as secretaries who work in offices, as factory workers who make things for us, as farmers? But it is true? Is it not also true that we all know in this chamber this morning, and I sense in the federal parliament and on municipal councils that we have a major problem on our hands that affects everybody, in a different way, but everybody?

It is true, oddly enough, and I agree with the Toronto Real Estate Board, that a relevant question these days is, “Where will our children live? Who can afford to buy a house? Who can afford to rent a house? Where will it be?” I think our society is coming together to realize that we at least have a problem here. Now is the time for governments at all levels to stop bellyaching about it and to get their respective acts together and to resolve it.

Mr. Cureatz: It gives me a great deal of privilege to stand this morning to speak on this resolution and following my colleague and next-door neighbour in my area the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).

I want to say how frustrating it is to have a mere, humble 10 minutes because I can tell members, as wont as I am from time to time to go on at great length about this resolution, I have to say, of course, the people at home who are tuning in are probably not doing so at this live performance, of which there are so many people in attendance and not very many Liberals, I might add, who have 94 seats. If they felt so strongly about this resolution, there would be Liberals packed in these chambers to condemn --

Mr. J. B. Nixon: We’ll be here to vote.

Mr. Cureatz: Well the people of Ontario made their fine decision to only select 17 of us, and there are a number of responsibilities in these chambers, as the member well knows -- to attend committees, etc. etc. Those guys were elected. They have got the huge majority. Where the heck are they all to support this resolution? I say to the people at home, I am digressing a little bit.

Mr. Fleet: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cureatz: Some of them might catch this.

Mr. Fleet: Mr. Speaker, there have been previous rulings in this House about commentary on the absence of members, and I raise that as a point of order. It has been ruled on, on a Thursday morning in particular, I recall, when private members’ business is being conducted. I would ask that be drawn to the attention of the honourable member last speaking.

Mr. Cureatz: Well, I will add another minute onto my diatribe, Mr. Speaker, since that is hardly a point of order. If the member would read his standing orders he would know that.

I say to the people at home, and I remind members that some of them might be catching this later this evening on the repeat as they are changing channels. I will bring them up to date on what this is all about. The member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon) has introduced a resolution condemning the federal government on its housing policy.

Well, this has nothing to do with the honourable member personally. I have nothing but the highest respect for him. We have sat on a number of committees together. On the insurance bill in the standing committee on administration of justice, I have to say he did his homework and did an admirable job.

But on this resolution, I have to say that my colleague who has brought forward this resolution is out to lunch. I would be able to say, over the number of years when we sat in the government and dealt with the federal Liberals when they were in power there was lack of leadership in the housing industry. Goodly enough, he comes forward with this resolution. It is a catch-all. I caught a bit of him on television before I came up here to give my speech and I will say the honourable member was full of statistics. He could not reach out into his speech and say, “Well, this is what we are condemning the federal government about right here.”

The people at home would be turning him off so fast because, quite frankly, he did not make a lot of sense. The people at home, let me tell them why this resolution was really brought in. Let’s talk about the politics of this place. I will tell them why it was brought in. We are in the midst of a federal election and there had to be some kind of negotiations from the front bench, the four people who really run it over here, with John Turner. They said: “Listen, John, you are not looking too bad in the polls now. Let’s help you out a little bit.

We are going to see who the next private member’s resolution is and we are going to condemn the federal Tories for the housing policy, That is a little political payoff that we are going to do.”

It has nothing to do about how the member feels about it. I will tell them why I know that is what has happened because it happened to me 10 years ago. I got a call from Bud Gregory after my first year sitting way over there right where “Baloney” is. He found me at the Benmiller Inn with my wife so we could have five days of vacation together. There is Bud three days later phoning me. He said, “Sam, the Premier wants you to reply to the speech from the throne.” Well, what did I know way back then? I did not know anything about the speech from the throne, I have to tell the members, just like this new member does not know anything.

I said, “Okay, I’ll do that.” And do you know what? As a matter of fact, I even wrote my own speech and gave it to Dave Surplis who was running the show, and he gave it back vetted. He said, “That’s what you say.” I got up and read it. I did not like what was there, but I went ahead anyway. I said to myself, “I’ve just been bamboozled.” And that is what has happened to him. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) came up and said, “Brad, we’ve got a little speech for you to make. We have got to try to help John Turner win some more seats in Ontario. We want to come out. Who knows? I want to leave my options open so I can run” -- oh, the member over here from Niagara is laughing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: The truth is, I say to the people at home, this is real politics and this is what is happening with this resolution, because if the truth be known -- and I only have about four minutes and 30 seconds -- I would be talking about what the Liberals are doing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member will address his remarks through the chair, please.

Mr. Cureatz: Let’s talk about what the Liberals are doing and then about the housing policy.

Here, they are condemning the federal government. Holy smokes, I have reams of it here. I could spend all delightful morning discussing what they are not doing. And do you know the first thing that comes to mind? Passing the dollar. Have you heard about that one? You know, passing the dollar. We heard about it on Sunday shopping. And you wait until we start going on that one when it finally gets in here and you people have enough gumption to close it in committee. We will hear all about Sunday shopping and passing it to the municipalities.

This resolution is doing the same thing because a good part of the problem lies right here. Why does he not stand up and say, “Let’s condemn the federal and provincial and municipal governments about housing”? Let’s be truthful about this. Let’s not cast a net across the whole federal scene.

I agree with my colleague, the member for Oshawa. I fight with the feds all the time and I fight with the provincial people and the municipal people; as we all do. But, no, he comes rolling in -- and I feel sorry for you. And do you know what, Brad? I am embarrassed for you, and you have learned your lesson. You know what? They will not respect you, those four guys. Do you think you are going to get into cabinet doing this? No way. They just used you as a filler and the Premier can phone up Turner and say, “Listen. We did it. Okay, you owe me one.” And we will see what happens.

If they make it, the Premier will have a few IOUs. If they do not make it, you have been used and your hopes for cabinet are finished, because when the election comes, I will tell you, it will not matter a hoot; you are on your own, and you would be far better bringing something about the concerns that you have for your constituents in your own riding than this catch-all policy.

Do you want to talk about passing the buck? Here is the Hamilton Spectator, I do not think well-known as a great bastion of Toryism. The editorial of the Spectator talks about the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins). Do you know what they did, according to the Spectator? “They performed a political miracle by passing the buck to municipalities. If the cabinet is reckless enough to approve this cynical scam, local taxpayers will have to clean up the provincial government’s mess on the housing crisis in Ontario.

“As the minister has made clear, the municipalities had better solve it or Queen’s Park will punish them. And if Ontario wants the municipalities to rescue the victims of bad,” bad, bad -- I added the two extra “bads” -- “provincial housing policy, let Ontario give them the money they’ll need for the job.”

Where are you people solving the housing crisis? Are you are coming in -- well, I am so happy that my colleague has made it back from the other side of the world to come back to reality here in these chambers. And what else have they had to say about the housing policies of the Liberal government?

The editorial in the Windsor Star, away at the other end of the province: “What is also disturbing about the province’s plan is that it has committed no new money to assist municipalities with the cost of additional sewers, utilities and other services they might be forced to install as part of a requirement to have a two-year supply of available residential building lots on hand.

“What the Ontario government is trying to do is to sell a little more than it made for the Toronto solution.” They are passing the dollar again. And what does my colleague come out with? He comes out with a catch-all net to try to condemn the federal government. I have 34 seconds left.

I have a caption of overviews of major groups, housing, rental and landlords, who condemn the provincial policies here about housing. I could go on at great length about our star Minister of Housing, the great and wonderful rising star and how she has fallen flat. She has not performed to expectations. All kinds of great and wonderful editorials; we can go on with the headlines.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you have not gathered yet, I will not be supporting this resolution.

Mr. Fleet: I would first like to congratulate the honourable member for York Mills who gave a particularly thoughtful, detailed and well-reasoned speech, which was also hard-hitting and I thought ample justification to support this resolution, as I will do.

When one considers the speech from the honourable member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), he never once defended in the whole ten-minute diatribe, although it was lively and entertaining, the inaction or the activities of the federal government. After all, the resolution deals with the federal government.

In this speech, what I will be doing is touching on some of the examples of the Mulroney government record, and secondly, looking at some of the alternatives that could and should have been done, and with some luck, the next federal government under John Turner will carry out. Certainly, the national Liberal alternatives deal with co-operation between governments, having a national housing strategy, providing help for those who need it most, and in addition to that, help for first-time home buyers.

The Mulroney government’s approach to housing policy can be very easily summed up as a washing of federal hands and a transferring of almost all of the responsibility to the provinces. Clearly, Mulroney and his government have no belief in the need for a national housing strategy or national leadership.

In fact, the members here will be astonished to learn that at a very significant public debate during the federal election, which occurred in Toronto last night, we had a representative from the New Democratic Party present, and John Nunziata ably represented the Liberal party position, but oddly enough, not one, single Conservative federal candidate could be found who would show up at the meeting. Let alone what he might say, they were not even willing to come to the meeting. That is an astonishing development in the middle of a federal election.

We should not be too surprised. After all, in the 1984 election, we had a campaign where Mulroney made hundreds of promises, one of which was to strengthen and expand co-operative housing programs. Right after that election and contrary to the promise he made, they cut back on funding for co-operatives and introduced new policies that effectively reduced the number of co-op units from 5,500 units a year to only 3,200 units a year.

In addition, the proportion of units that received low-income rent supplements fell from 42 to 30 per cent. Despite a waiting list of 17,000 persons for subsidized housing in 1987, the Conservative co-op program funded just 126 units in the Metropolitan Toronto area, of which 37 were earmarked for low income families.

Between 1984 and 1987, federal capital funding for housing, perhaps the most important single source of federal funding, was cut by 61 per cent. It is an astonishing reality of Conservative priorities -- shameful indeed. During the same period, grants and subsidies under the residential rehabilitation assistance program, known as RRAP, were rapped very hard and cut from $202 million to $131 million, a 35 per cent slash.

Between 1984 and 1987, the total subsidies and grants budget for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. fell 13 per cent, from $1.7 billion to just under $1.5 billion. Cumulatively, these funding cuts totalled $606 million from 1984. An astonishing development occurred in 1986. That was the year when for the first time ever, federal spending on social housing actually fell. Never before had that occurred under any prior government.

One might well ask, what was being planned in 1988 by CMHC? Indeed, it is a very good question. The answer is that their corporate plan says the federal government intends to withdraw completely from funding of capital costs for joint federal-provincial public housing projects. It is really astonishing that they would want to pull right out.

I do not want to be unfair to the Conservatives. They say they want to put more emphasis on the rent supplement program. Of course, they intend to cut back everywhere else in the nonprofit sector in order to do that. Even if they do add money for rent supplements, it does not add one cent, it does not add one little bit of assistance to people who need new affordable housing units to be built.

Another thing one would undoubtedly find astonishing about the Conservatives federally is that when they bring out all of their wonderful papers, in over four years there is not a single mention of the word “homeless” in all their housing papers. They have put out lots of papers, but they are not interested in dealing with the homeless.

Although it was mentioned earlier by the member for York Mills, I think the comment made by John McDermid, Mulroney’s Minister of State (Housing), bears repeating. When he was asked about shelter for street people, he said: “There is no excuse for anyone not finding a roof over their head. When we look at the so-called street people” -- just “so-called” somehow -- “it is not just a lack of hostels. Other factors are involved. Some of these people are free spirits and love to live that lifestyle.”

McDermid is so insensitive, so uncaring, that he seems to think the homeless are lucky to be without shelter, that they are lucky to be without a home. That is an absolutely disgusting approach for them to take in the federal government, a total lack of moral direction, a total lack of guidance in this nation.

Since the time I am allowed does not permit me to touch on all the initiatives of the provincial government, I will only use one example. It is a perfect example of the contrast in styles between the provincial Liberals and the federal Conservatives.

We have St. Lawrence Square. We recently announced that we will be involved heavily, in co-operation with the city of Toronto, in redeveloping underutilized industrial lands. It is a $1.2-billion contribution. We might ask, what are the feds going to do? The short answer is that they are going to sell the land at top dollar. They are not going to provide any help at all. When some 5,000 families move in, they should be well aware that the federal government did not provide a nickel to help house those people.

The Downsview airport fiasco has already been mentioned earlier, but I think one should consider the views of Mayor Mel Lastman. Mayor Lastman is a well-known Conservative. He is also known, of course, for quiet understatement. What does he say? Since his community was supposed to be helped, he said, “This housing project is fantasy land, an obvious election ploy that will never get off the ground.” He has condemned his own party; he has condemned the federal Tories, and rightly so.

What about the Liberal alternatives? What has been announced? What should have been done by these terrible Tories?

For example, there has been an announcement by John Turner, in my riding of High Park-Swansea I might add, an announcement that would very much help the people who live in my riding, of relief for hard-hit renters with a refundable tax credit for all households with renters paying more than 30 per cent of their income on housing needs, to a maximum of $2,500 per year which would be refundable; direct assistance even for people who are not paying income tax, graduated to increase with the number of children in the family; advanced monthly, so payments would be available to help people meet the rent.

No red tape, because it would be reconcilable with annual income tax returns. It would be direct assistance, not just in Ontario but across all of Canada, to some 1.2 million Canadians.

The Liberals have also announced they would reintroduce the registered home ownership program, cut off quite improperly by the Tories. It is exactly what we need to help people buy their first home. It would be a way people could save up to $2,000 per year for 10 years, with a maximum tax credit of 25 per cent of the savings.

The list goes on. We have things like a federal audit of lands, to identify them. Those surplus lands, under the Liberals, would be dedicated to affordable housing purposes.

We want to increase the core-need targeting of the RRAP funds I referred to earlier; a doubling of nonprofit and co-operative units allocated annually to 40,000 per year; a commitment to spend $5 billion over five years for program cost-sharing with provincial and municipal governments to rebuild roads, to add sewers, to do all the things that are necessary; to eliminate substandard housing on native reserves; to provide a three-tiered comprehensive strategy for emergency relief-, preventive measures and long-term solutions for people who are homeless.

These are the positive initiatives the federal Liberals will do, and that is why I support, and encourage all of us to support, this resolution.

Mr. Laughren: May I first of all commend the member for York Mills for his resolution and the way he unblushingly carries on the federal election campaign here in this provincial chamber, but I did enjoy his speech, as I did that of the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet).

I drink I appreciated the rather philosophic bent of the member for York Mills, particularly his comment at the beginning of his speech that he regarded housing as a right in Canada and that it was strange that the Conservatives have always talked about entrenching property rights in the Constitution, but never housing. I think that speaks volumes about a social attitude by the federal, and I might add, the provincial Conservatives.

I must say, however, that I do understand the member for York Mills. I am sure that before he prepared his speech -- I’m sure he did not allow anyone to prepare it for him; I do not, believe anybody else could have written that speech other than the member for York Mills.

An hon. member: Well done.

Mr. Laughren: Well, you can interpret that in whatever way you want, but I really do believe the member for York Mills sat back and said to himself, “You know, I think the best defence is a good offence,” because to defend his own government’s record on housing would be extremely difficult. It is much, much easier to go and attack the federal Tories on their housing programs than it is to defend the indefensible housing programs of the Ontario Ministry of Housing.

I mean, here in the province of Ontario we have 10,000 homeless in the city of Toronto, they tell me, and 20,000 across the province, if those numbers are still accurate, and yet we have a Minister of Housing who I understand did not even spend all of her social housing budget last year. She did not even spend all that was allocated to her by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). What kind of concern is that for those people who most desperately need housing when the minister does not even spend all that is appropriately allocated to her ministry? It makes no sense whatsoever. It is almost like a contradiction.

A couple of years ago, we had a very severe housing problem in Sudbury, and I can recall one family living in a motel room while there was a house owned by CMHC -- it had been repossessed, as I recall, by CMHC -- that was empty while a family lived in a motel. There were a number of us who discovered one morning that the padlock on the door had been cut and that the door was indeed open, and so we helped the family move into the CMHC house. Well, you should have heard the screaming, by the Tories especially, that we had invaded someone’s private property.

They seemed to think there was some kind of logic that there was an empty house sitting there owned by the state, while you had a family with kids living in a motel room. If members saw those two things, I think most reasonable people in our society would say that there is something wrong, and therefore a group of us moved the family into the empty house.

By the way, members do not need to dwell on the problems of urban housing in this province. I would invite members to visit northern Indian reserves in this province and take a look at the quality of housing in the north. I know that some members have done that. As members, they will come back, I think, changed people. Perhaps that is stating it a little strongly, but it is a profound experience to visit the small Indian reserves at James Bay, Hudson Bay, up north of Pickle Lake in the northwest. It is truly a profound experience.

At some point, we as a society are going to have to recognize our responsibilities there. At this point, we have not done that. I know nothing gives the two senior levels of government more enjoyment, almost a malicious enjoyment it seems, than the game of jurisdictional ping-pong they play with our native people on questions of housing. You should hear the way they talk, and the native people in the far north are the victims of that jurisdictional ping-pong.

It would not be appropriate if I did not say in this debate that the federal New Democrats have a housing policy. I agree with the member for York Mills that the federal Tories are sadly lacking in their attitude towards housing. I will not requote the federal Minister of State (Housing), Mr. McDermid, in his comments about housing, but I thought it would be appropriate in the time remaining to put on the record a few of the things federal New Democrats believe.

A New Democratic government would quickly convene a housing action summit of private and public sector actors, including nonprofit housing developers and private developers, housing advocates and all three levels of government. The federal New Democrat would increase the federal commitment to nonprofit and co-op housing to 50,000 units per year, at least 10,000 of which would be co-op units. A $10-million fund will be created to help organizations that provide shelter to the homeless and an additional 1,000 units a year would be allocated for native housing.

We would use federal lands for affordable housing. The federal government would sell part of its significant landholdings for housing development, with the provision that at least 50 per cent of the housing be affordable for low- and middle-income families. We would have a sensible tax policy. We have condemned the Conservatives’ $100,000 capital gains tax exemption for fuelling completely unproductive speculation in the housing market.

Further, we would not proceed with the Conservative government’s intention of applying the new federal sales tax to housing, which would increase the price of a $ 100,000 home. Of course, I know talking about a $100,000 home in Metropolitan Toronto is fanciful, but for those people who do still live in a world of $100,000 homes, it could increase the price of that home by as much as $9,000. Here we have the federal government, the federal Tories, if they get their way, determined to go ahead with this new federal sales tax that would put that kind of interest on the cost of housing.

The provincial government’s hands are not clean either. Here we have the Treasurer and the Premier refusing to take any action whatsoever on the rapidly escalating price of homes in Metropolitan Toronto. I never thought I would see the day when the average price of a resale home in Metro was $189 short of $250,000; $249,811 is the average price of a resale home in Metropolitan Toronto for the month of October 1988. As long as this government is content to simply throw stones at the federal government and not put in place a sensible housing program of its own, it too stands condemned.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Mills has reserved two minutes.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I would like to assure the members opposite, in particular one member, that indeed I wrote the speech. No one asked me to write it; it was not vetted by anyone. I wrote it and I spoke and put it before the House because I thought it had to be said. It is obvious to me that it is an important issue and an issue the federal government has not taken seriously,

I can give just one brief example. If you go to downtown Toronto, you will find young men and young women who have medical problems, who have not completed their education, who need skills training, and the federal government has cut back on the budgets for medical care, for education, for skills training. But what those people will tell you is that first of all, before they get their skills training, their health care and their education, they need a place to stay.

If you look at where they are staying, you will find they are staying in a warehouse that is unheated. They get a cup of coffee in the morning and then they are thrown out on the street. If members do not think that is a problem that should be spoken to in this House, a problem that should be spoken to in this election, then I ask them what should be spoken to?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Finally, I would point out that the federal government has committed to the production of the exact sum total of 37 co-op units this year in the city of Toronto; that is all the federal government has committed to. Province-wide, the provincial government has committed to over 3,000. I think the record is clear. I think the federal government has done nothing other than demonstrate an inadequate policy and also a complete failure to co-operate with other levels of government in establishing an adequate housing policy.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the discussion time for private members’ public business. We will now deal with resolution 39, Mr. Sterling’s motion for second reading of Bill 157.

12: 06

MUNICIPAL SMOKING BY-LAW AUTHORIZATION ACT

The House divided on Mr. Sterling’s motion for second reading of Bill 157, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Allen, Ballinger, Black, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Campbell, Charlton, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cureatz, Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Eves, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Furlong, Grier, Hart, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kanter, Keyes,

Laughren, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Martel, Matrundola, McClelland, Morin, Nixon, J. B., Owen, Philip, E., Pollock, Poole, Rae, B., Ruprecht, Sola, South, Sterling, Stoner, Villeneuve, Wildman, Wilson.

Nays

Ferraro, Miller, Roberts, Tatham.

Ayes 53; nays 4.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

FEDERAL HOUSING POLICY

The House divided on Mr. J. B. Nixon’s motion of resolution 49, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Allen, Ballinger, Black, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Campbell, Charlton, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Furlong, Grier, Henderson, Johnston, R. F., Kanter, Keyes, Laughren, Lipsett, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Martel, Matrundola, McClelland, Miller, Morin, Morin-Strom, Nixon, J. B., Owen, Philip, E., Poole, Rae, B., Roberts, Ruprecht, Sola, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Tatham, Wildman, Wilson.

Nays

Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Eves, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Pollock, Sterling, Villeneuve.

Ayes 49; nays 9.

The House recessed at 12:20 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

Mr. Wildman: Ever since the federal Conservatives initiated negotiations with the Reagan administration on a so-called free trade deal, the New Democrats in this House have been pressing the provincial Liberals for action to protect the interests of Ontario. Instead, what we have received from the government is a lot of election rhetoric and subsequent promises, but complete inaction.

When after some considerable period of delay the government introduced so-called anti-free trade legislation last June, we looked at the legislation and hoped it would in fact show that the provincial administration was determined to protect Ontario’s interests.

When the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) finally introduced

An Act respecting transfers of Water, he made a speech saying it closed the door on the export of water from the provincial drainage basin. At that time, I responded by saying we supported this in principle and would be having to look at the bill to analyse it to determine whether or not it did that.

As members know, we have subsequently analysed the bill and found it wanting. We have suggested amendments to the minister that would close the door on exports of water. We have yet to see whether the minister is prepared to accept those amendments. All he has said is he would accept amendments which are appropriate.

It is completely inappropriate for this government to want to license the export of any water from the provincial drainage basin.

CIVIL SERVANTS’ LEGAL FEES

Mr. Runciman: In the light of the failure of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) to respond to some very serious matters I raised with him last week in respect of the government funding of a crown employee’s lawsuit against the Church of Scientology and the Globe and Mail, I would like to put some of the facts on the record. This supposedly open government refused to provide information on this matter until compelled to do so under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In February 1988, the chief administrative officer of the criminal law division of the Ministry of the Attorney General clearly indicated in writing that he did not want the use of government funds financing a private lawsuit to be easily identified. He suggested they be allocated to accounts other than those associated with the office where the individual filing the lawsuit worked. As a result, the expenditure was listed in a travel/claims account, thereby making it virtually impossible for anyone perusing the ministry’s accounts to detect the real reason for the expenditure.

Is that an appropriate or justifiable accounting procedure? I doubt that any accountant worth his salt would think so, and it should be cause for concern to a minister responsible for overseeing government expenditures. The minister has not shown that concern, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I was advised yesterday by the Provincial Auditor’s office that within the next six months the auditor will review the appropriateness of this creative accounting and report to the Legislature. Perhaps then this minister’s efforts to obscure the facts from public view through obfuscation and personal insults will come back to haunt him and his government. I am looking forward to that day.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Faubert: I wish to commend the government for showing leadership in transportation issues in the greater Toronto area. Members will recall that last May the provincial government announced new transportation directions for the greater Toronto area. I am pleased to note the significant progress already made in starting many of the proposed projects.

A centrepiece of the plan, greater fare integration of the provincial GO Transit network with Metro’s Toronto Transit Commission, is already well under way. With the recent announcement of Twin Pass sales at all Metro GO Transit stations, commuters in Toronto now have both transit options more conveniently available. I understand that sales of the passes well exceed initially projected figures.

Expansion of the GO Transit network is and will be taking place both east and west of Metro. I have saved the best for last. In a recent letter to TTC chairman Jeff Lyons, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) indicated this government’s willingness to proceed with financial assistance for the necessary first steps to define and protect the Sheppard subway corridor, all of it from Yonge Street through to the Scarborough City Centre. In doing so, the minister has exceeded Metro’s request in setting the Yonge to Victoria Park Avenue corridor as its first priority.

With this move, the provincial government has acknowledged that, in planning a major transportation corridor such as this, one cannot simply draw a line on the map and proceed. A project of this magnitude takes careful planning and requires the necessary first steps in protecting the corridor.

I commend the government and the minister for leadership in transportation in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

NOTRE DAME HIGH SCHOOL

Ms. Bryden: I would like to draw to the attention of the House that we have with us in the gallery today one of the largest groups of students ever to visit the House together. They are 120 students from Notre Dame High School in my riding.

I congratulate their teacher, Joe Pacione, on bringing such a large group to visit the Legislature in order to give them a view of where and how our laws are made.

I am sure they will be interested in our discussion today on things connected particularly with education, and I hope that they will hear some commitments to further increases in educational grants so that we can have modem, 20th-century education in all our schools.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: The transfer of schools between public and separate school boards as a result of Bill 30 is a sensitive and serious matter. When this Legislature passed this bill extending full funding to Roman Catholic separate schools, we established two specific ground rules for school transfers: first, the public had to be involved in the decision to transfer a school; and, second, any transfer decisions had to be made by elected trustees who are directly accountable to parents and ratepayers.

The Ministry of Education, in its dealings with the Lakehead boards of education, has broken both of these ground rules. The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) sent a government official to Thunder Bay to call together the two directors of education. These three men met secretly in a hotel and agreed that Lakeview High School should be given to the separate school board. The trustees of that board were not consulted until after the decision had been made. This was a clear violation of one of those ground rules.

Parents suspected that something was up and applied under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to the memorandum of agreement. A ministry official, Patricia Llewellen, said no such document existed. Then the ministry said that a document did exist but that no specific school was mentioned. Only on November 4 did parents obtain access to the memorandum, signed by three people, which gives Lakeview High School away to the separate board.

The Conservative Party believes that schools should be transferred only by elected trustees and after full public consultation.

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

Mr. Jackson: In Thunder Bay, this government did neither.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

POLISH INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. Ruprecht: Today we will pay tribute to those brave men and women who gave their lives in the defence of our country. But for Canadians of Polish heritage, that day has added significance, since November 11 is Polish Independence Day. After the occupation forces were expelled from Poland in 1918, a free, reunited and independent Poland was established on November 11. For Polish Canadians, November 11 means freedom, the freedom they continue to hope for in their native country.

We are reminded by the anniversary of Polish Independence Day that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and that true peace must be built on the principles of freedom, liberty and democracy for all people and all nations.

By their observance of that day, Polish Canadians keep alive the hope and the struggle for a free and independent Poland and ensure that Canadians continue to appreciate how fortunate they are to live in a society that is blessed and based on the principles of liberty, justice and tolerance.

Today we take great pride in the accomplishments of Polish Canadians here in Canada and we wish them well as they celebrate Polish Independence Day.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: Recently, members of the Legislature had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Ontario forest products industries and they made a very effective presentation on behalf of their industry regarding various concerns they have, particularly with the Ministry of Natural Resources in its programs to regenerate our forests. We heard quite clearly that forest renewal in northern Ontario is not going on to the extent that the forests are being depleted, particularly on the crown lands that are the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

We have an obligation as a province to ensure that we provide for the future wellbeing of the residents of northern Ontario and the critical jobs that are associated with that most important industry. I would call on the minister to take the concerns of the forest industry seriously and address the problems that are being faced by that industry, and in particular ensure that he puts the money back into his budget so that we can maintain and improve the level of regeneration going on in the north, rather than cutting the programs, as he has done most recently.

NATASHA KHASSIN

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next order of business, I would like to ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery Natasha Khassin. Mrs. Khassin is one of the heroes of Soviet Jewry and is visiting the United States and Canada. Please join me in welcoming Mrs. Khassin.

I have also arranged that a representative of each party would have a few moments to offer words of welcome.

Mr. Allen: It is truly an honour for us to have Natasha Khassin with us this afternoon. She is currently completing a tour of North America to call attention to the problems that continue in the Soviet Union for Soviet Jewry and in particular for the refuseniks.

Natasha Khassin is one of the truly heroic voices of religious freedom of our time. She has put her life on the line time and again in the Soviet Union so that her fellow Soviet Jews and the refuseniks in particular might have the kind of support and sustenance that they need to continue their struggle.

When in 1976 the Soviet leadership of the refusenik movement began to disappear, either into prisons or to Israel, and that leadership waned, it was Natasha Khassin who stepped into the breach and took on their functions, the many, many functions they have performed as a collective group, and carried forward with the leadership that they had provided, doing it almost singlehandedly.

She took on many dangerous roles, trying to provide defence for prisoners, trying to research cases and get information that would publicize cases. She also provided a home for those who left prison, who came and stayed with her while they found their feet again. It was at her place that the Alberts conducted their very famous 45-day fast, which eventually led to their leaving the Soviet Union. She herself, in fact, put her life in danger and was constantly harassed and threatened by the KGB and by authorities in the Soviet Union.

She was more than a present help in a time of trouble, she was a tower of strength and a beacon of religious liberty for all those who love the freedom of the human spirit. We are deeply honoured that she is here. We would call attention to the fact that she is not at the moment simply speaking of people in the abstract. She is here also to speak specifically for Boris Chernobilski, who at the moment is seeking an exit from the Soviet Union. She wants in particular for us to remember Boris Chernobilski and people like him who have their lives severely curtailed in the most fundamental ways and in ways that most of us are able to live out and express in our lives here in Canada.

It is a great honour for me to rise and to pay this tribute to Natasha Khassin and to welcome her to our midst this afternoon.

Mr. Cousens: It is with great pleasure that I rise to welcome Natasha Khassin, a most distinguished visitor to our Legislature today. Mrs. Khassin has been referred to as one of the great heroes of Soviet Jewry. I say to all members today that Mrs. Khassin’s accomplishments make her a hero to all people around the world who strive for freedom from persecution, freedom from repression and freedom to live their lives in peace.

In April 1987, Natasha Khassin, along with her husband, Dr. Gennady Khassin, and daughter Yehudit, were finally allowed to leave the Soviet Union, after a 12-year fight. They are now reunited in Israel with daughter Ilona and their two young grandsons.

During those years of waiting, Mrs. Khassin’s valiant ways to campaign against the KGB often found her victim to constant surveillance, attacks in the press, threats of arrest and even threats on her own life; all of this to deter one brilliant and courageous woman from fighting for free emigration for all Jewish people in the Soviet Union.

Mrs. Khassin’s tireless campaign has been wide-ranging, from providing material assistance to prisoners, to travelling across the countryside gathering evidence in their defence, to sheltering as many refuseniks as her small apartment would allow. Many of us will remember the emotional day in February 1986 when TV viewers from around the world shared Nathan Shcharansky’s mother’s joy at the news of his release. This unforgettable event was witnessed from Mrs. Khassin’s apartment.

She graces this House today as part of a 10-city tour across North America in her continuing fight for Soviet refuseniks, notably Boris Chernobilski, refused permission for 12 years and the only refusenik who has been in prison twice as a prisoner of conscience, and also working for Yuli Kosharovski, refused permission to emigrate for 17 years.

On behalf of our party, I join with my colleagues of the Ontario Legislature Committee for Soviet Jewry and the Beth Tikvah congregation in welcoming Mrs. Khassin to our county and to extend to her our deepest thanks for her contribution to humanity. Today is truly a celebration.

Mr. Offer: As one of the co-chairmen of this Legislature’s committee for Soviet Jewry, it is a great honour for me and our party to rise in order to recognize the distinguished visitor, Natasha Khassin, who is with us today.

As has been indicated, Natasha Khassin is a former Soviet refusenik who had been denied permission to emigrate from the Soviet Union for many years. However, her work on behalf of others during her years of denial amply exemplifies a courage and indeed a heroism, because while inside the Iron Curtain she demonstrated a leadership for all Soviet Jews, whether it was a matter of providing aid to prisoners, travelling to remote locations to gather evidence for use in their legal defence and campaigns for western public support or openly defying the KGB, Natasha Khassin was there for anyone who needed her.

Natasha Khassin did this and much more. She cared for prisoners, working with them for their release, and she did this over and over for many, many years. It is a tribute to many concerned individuals, organizations and legislatures like ours which assisted and remained committed to helping our friends like Natasha Khassin emigrate from the Soviet Union. Co-operation from all levels of government combined with the efforts from our communities will ensure that more Soviet Jews will be given the same opportunity as Natasha Khassin.

How appropriate it is for us to use this Legislature, a place which symbolizes a freedom of thought and speech, to bring to life not only her accomplishments but to once more remind all that it is a freedom which we have that others in other lands and other people do not.

On behalf of my party, I would personally like to wish Mrs. Khassin and her family the very best as they rebuild a new life in Israel.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is unanimous consent to make some remarks with regard to Remembrance Day.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed?

Agreed to.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

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

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

For many people in this province and in this country, war is something remote, other than the occasional viewing of special programs of remembrance of Vimy, Dieppe, D-Day, etc. We have throughout our province and, yes, within the Ontario public service, those men and women who served with distinction and were decorated.

There are also those who know only too well the horrors of it all through confinement in prisoner-of-war or concentration camps. At the close of the Second World War, a well-known