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

June 29, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

GREAT LAKES FISHERY

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT, 1989

GREAT LAKES FISHERY

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT, 1989

AFTERNOON SITTING

ANNUAL REPORT,COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

ACADEMIC STREAMING

EDITORIAL CARTOON

CANCER TREATMENT

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION LEVY

CANADA DAY

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

CANADA DAY / FETE DU CANADA

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CLASS ACTIONS

CROP INSURANCE

RESPONSES

CLASS ACTIONS

CROP INSURANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

PATRICIA STARR

HIRING OF HOUSING CONSULTANT

HOSPITAL SERVICES

SOCIAL WORKERS

NURSING HOMES

CORONERS’ INQUEST

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

MARCO MUZZO

CANCER TREATMENT

HOME CARE

RECYCLING

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

ELEVATORS

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

NATUROPATHY

CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

NATUROPATHY

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

ACADEMIC STREAMING

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

NATUROPATHY

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

NATUROPATHY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VETERINARIANS ACT, 1989

BRUCELLOSIS REPEAL ACT, 1989

LAURAMAR HOLDINGS ACT, 1989

TEACHERS’ PENSION ACT, 1989

BOLSWARD INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT, 1989

ROYAL ASSENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

GREAT LAKES FISHERY

Mr J. M. Johnson moved resolution 13.

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing the importance of sport fishing to the economic wellbeing of the province, and the need to improve the management and quality of the aquatic resources in the Great Lakes fishery, the government of Ontario should implement changes in the regulation and management of the Great Lakes fishery to ensure that sport fishing remains viable in Ontario by immediately initiating plans to eliminate the use of commercial gill nets and provide assistance to the commercial fishing industry in converting to trap nets and by accelerating its fish stocking programs.

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

Mr J. M. Johnson: Over a year ago, on 15 June 1988, my colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr Pollock), the Progressive Conservative critic for Natural Resources, announced the policy of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario on commercial and sport fishing in our Great Lakes. The member is in the hospital today or he would be speaking on this resolution.

This policy statement urged the government to take immediate action to implement changes in the regulation and management of the Great Lakes fishery to ensure that both commercial and sport fishing industries remain viable in Ontario. One of the main initiatives of this policy statement was the thrust towards replacing commercial gill nets with trap nets.

While the government has made some progress in certain areas for protection of sport fish, especially in eastern Lake Ontario, it has not addressed the issue in a really meaningful way. For this reason, I felt compelled to bring this resolution forward. Today we will have the opportunity to debate this issue, and I would like at this time to give members some background information.

The people of Ontario do benefit and should continue to benefit from commercial and sport fishing. These benefits are both social and economic. Currently, Ontario has approximately 2.5 million to 3 million people participating in sport fishing and supporting an industry valued at over $2.4 billion annually. The sport fishing industry is in a period of dramatic growth. Approximately 3,000 Ontario commercial fishermen catch products with a total dockside value of approximately $100 million per annum.

Commercial fishermen use a variety of gear, including both live-capture trap nets and gill nets. Both types of nets can be set to target for specific fish species, but both will also incidentally catch nontarget species. Fortunately, most fish caught in trap nets can be released to swim and spawn again. Those caught in gill nets are normally dead or dying.

Studies in Ontario and elsewhere have shown that incidental catches in commercial gill nets are substantial. Several jurisdictions -- New York, Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota -- with whom Ontario shares international waters have already banned the use of gill nets.

The issue is gill netting in the Great Lakes. Commercial fishermen in the Great Lakes are licensed by the Ministry of Natural Resources to fish with gill nets for yellow perch, white perch, whitefish and smelt. Other fish for which commercial fishermen are not presently licensed, such as trout, bass and walleye, are inadvertently caught in gill nets, resulting in what is called an incidental catch. The incidental catch of the commercial fishermen significantly reduces the amount of game fish available to sport fishermen. That is the heart of the issue and the reason for this resolution.

A number of studies have been undertaken by the Ministry of Natural Resources showing that there is always incidental catch in the gill nets used by commercial fishermen. A 1987 study conducted by the Ministry of Natural Resources showed that 61 per cent of the fish caught in perch gill nets were nontarget sport fish. An earlier MNR study in eastern Lake Ontario showed gill netters incidentally caught three lake trout for every one of their target whitefish.

I might make reference to a Ministry of Natural Resources study conducted in eastern Lake Ontario. I will cite a few facts. In zone 2.1, 45 per cent of the fish caught were sport fish, 33 per cent were yellow perch and 22 per cent were other species. In zone 4, 31 per cent were sport fish, 32 per cent were yellow perch and 37 per cent were other species.

There are several other documents here, but the bottom line is that, overall, 30 per cent of the weight of the estimated harvest from small-mesh gill nets consist of sport fish, while 39 per cent are yellow perch -- that was the target species -- and 31 per cent are other species, Therefore, 61 per cent of the fish caught in gill nets are not the target fish, in this instance perch. That was a small study in eastern Lake Ontario.

The significant reduction in available game fish caused by the use of commercial gill nets reduces the potential economic benefits to the local area. Sport fishing has become of greater economic significance to the province than commercial fishing. In 1985, the economic impact of sport fishing to Ontario was $2.4 billion. In 1987, the landed value of Ontario commercial fish was approximately $100 million. That is $2.4 billion compared to $100 million.

I might take a few minutes to mention an

article by Jim Foster of the Toronto Star in the 10 July 1988 paper. I will cite a couple of facts he has mentioned. “Mississauga has proclaimed itself Salmon Capital of Canada, Gateway to a Sport Fisherman’s Paradise.… Fishing in Lake Ontario is big bucks. Since 1975 it has grown from zilch to $50 million or more a year, by unofficial estimates. Some insiders think that figure is low. No one tallies all the spending on boats, motors, fuel, tackle, electronic gear, charters, accommodation, food and drink, ice and what have you....”

Scarborough’s economic development commissioner, John Morand, “figures the action is worth at least $5 million to Scarborough this year and will soon reach $15 million….Thousands of anglers visit Mississauga every year and the city now advertises its salmon -- ‘Your best bet for a trophy’ -- in the US, Europe and Japan....

“The Ontario government” -- that is, the Liberal government – “says almost one third of the population goes fishing every summer and 700,000 Americans join them. Metro Toronto alone has at least a quarter million fishermen.”

I might just say that I have the latest statistics from the Ministry of Natural Resources on the sport fishing licences. The 1987-88 figures are not in yet. For nonresidents, 637,000 people bought licences, and of Ontario residents, 983,000, nearly a million people. The total number of licences is 1.62 million, and the approximate revenue is $21 million for licences alone. That does not include the food, drink and all the things that are related to sport fishing.

I will go back to the

article in the Toronto Star: “Last year’s Salmon Hunt entries represent more than 500 Ontario towns, not to mention all the other provinces, 22 American states, Europe and the Far East.” Steve Wells of Steve’s Custom Tackle in St Catharines was quoted as saying: “What woke Ontario up was reading that in 1981-82 fishing brought in $5.5 billion revenue for New York state.” It is a significant amount of money for our tourist industry.

I will carry on with the background material. The significant reduction in available game fish caused by the use of commercial gill nets reduces the potential economic benefits to local areas. That is the point I was trying to make by citing some of those facts. Sport fishing has become more important than commercial fishing as far as raising dollars for the province.

If commercial fishermen switched to trap nets, most of the nontarget fish could be released alive to swim and spawn again. Trap nets also produce better-quality commercial fish for the consumer.

The community fisheries program, which assists with the management and stocking of provincial waterways with game fish, would benefit from a move to trap nets. Operators have recently been reluctant to continue with the program because they are seeing the fish they raised for sport fishing being killed in commercial gill nets.

In response to the findings of the studies noted above, on 30 March 1988 the Ministry of Natural Resources announced some restrictions in the use of gill nets on eastern Lake Ontario for the 1988 and 1989 fishing seasons. I congratulate them on this initiative. The announcement also extended the current buyout program, currently in place to purchase commercial gill net operations, to 15 December 1988. I would hope that they would reinstitute this program, because it is a very worthwhile initiative.

I might just make mention of that study. I received this documentation on 21 June, just a few days ago, by fax from the Napanee district manager of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

He said:

“Complaints by local commercial fishermen and observations by MNR staff have indicated substantial incidental catches on nontarget fish species in small-mesh gill nets. During May and June of 1987, MNR initiated a study to determine levels of incidental catch of nontarget fish species in the small-mesh yellow perch gill net fishery.

Overall, 30 per cent of the weight of the estimated May-June commercial gill net catch was sport fish, while approximately 39 per cent was yellow perch, the target species -- only 39 per cent -- while 31 percent was fish of other species. Therefore, 61 percent of the fish caught in perch gill nets were not perch.

They had a very interesting study conducted in that area and had meetings with various people. They did encourage many of the commercial fishermen who were using gill nets to convert. For those commercial fishermen wishing to dispose of gill net licences or to retire from the fishery, a buyout program was initiated to purchase gill net operations offered for sale during 1988.

The buyout program, which is now completed, involved the purchase of 20 of the 56 gill net licences on eastern Lake Ontario. The quantity of licensed gill nets was reduced by 85,250 metres, or approximately 32 per cent. Four new trap net licences were issued to commercial fishermen who wished to convert from gill net licences to entrapment gear. It is a program which I assume was completed in 1988. I encourage the ministry to carry on with that program.

I have a few recommendations I would like to table at this time.

I firmly believe that changes are necessary in the regulation and management of the commercial fishing industry to ensure that both the commercial and sport fishing industries remain viable in Ontario.

The Ontario government cannot ignore the economic benefits both industries bring to the province; nor can it ignore its investment in the community fisheries program.

The province must move immediately to phase out the use of gill nets for commercial fishing based on a structured time frame related to the lifetime of existing licences.

In conjunction with a phase-out program, the Ontario government must implement a program to financially assist commercial fishermen to either retire or to switch their operations to the use of trap nets.

The province must move immediately to consult with all interested parties -- ie, commercial fishermen, sport fishermen and native groups -- to develop these programs.

I would like to reserve approximately five minutes of my time to allow other members to participate in this debate.

Mr Miller: I am pleased this morning to be able to rise and participate in the debate concerning the resolution of the member for Wellington (Mr J. M. Johnson) concerning the Great Lakes fishery.

First of all, I would like to pay a little bit of a tribute to our honourable friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough. We are sorry to know that he is in the hospital. We would just like to wish him well. We hope he is on the mend and that he will be back in the Legislature soon. I have always enjoyed working with him, his colleagues and other members of the Legislature.

To get back to the debate that we are involved in this morning, both sport and commercial fishing have important roles to play in the economy of this province. I believe our government, particularly the Ministry of Natural Resources, has a commitment to a healthy fishery.

That commitment is demonstrated in part by the success that has been achieved through the strategic plan for Ontario fisheries.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) recently announced that a major review of the strategic plan is being undertaken to prepare for the fisheries challenge of the future. The original management strategy was approved in 1976 and since that time, significant progress has been made in managing Ontario’s fisheries resources. The honourable minister has stated that fishing on the Great Lakes is in great shape and the strategic planning for Ontario fisheries 2 initiative is aimed at further improving the health of the province’s fisheries.

I would like to point out that, particularly on Lake Erie, the fishing has improved and the pickerel fishing has never been better. The anglers and the commercial fishermen are all taking

part in that resource.

The undertaking will break new ground through unprecedented public involvement. In addition, input is being sought from a wide range of interest groups.

Some of the best sport fishing anywhere in North America can be found right here in Ontario. In addition to providing recreational opportunities for the people of Ontario and visitors of the province, a strong sport fishery provides economic benefits and encourages tourism.

I know that the Minister of Natural Resources also recognizes the important role the commercial fishing industry plays and that his ministry is working with the industry to ensure that it prospers and the fisheries resource is protected.

The commercial fishing industry, which is the mainstay of my riding of Norfolk, particularly in the Port Dover, Port Rowan, Port Stanley area, has played a tremendous role in the history of those municipalities. I know there is a lot of potential, and that can continue.

Where there is a conflict between the sport fishing and commercial fishing communities, the ministry tries to resolve it and promotes cooperation between the two sectors.

One of the contentious issues between these two sectors has been the size of incidental catch in commercial gill nets. The ministry has approached this issue on a lake-by-lake basis and I would like to take a few moments to talk about some of the programs which are in effect.

Earlier this month the ministry announced new restrictions to further reduce the incidental catch of smallmouth bass taken in commercial gill nets in Long Point Bay in Lake Erie, which is in my constituency. The use of gill nets will be banned from 1 July to 30 September in an area east of Port Dover, including a strip immediately offshore running about 4.2 kilometres east from Port Dover to Peacock Point. The adjacent waters surrounding Nanticoke shoal are also included.

I think we recognize the importance of maintaining these areas as a nursery for restocking the lakes and that approach should be utilized in all parts of the Great lakes and all waterways within the Ontario boundary.

Last year, commercial fishermen in the area co-operated in avoiding what the ministry refers to as hot spots, areas with high populations of smallmouth bass, east of Port Dover. As a result, the incidental catch has declined by 33 per cent since 1987. With the new restrictions, the ministry estimates that the incidental catch should be reduced by 77 to 100 per cent.

The restricted areas are not highly productive for perch, which is the commercial fishermen’s main target. Therefore, the new restrictions are expected to have a minimal effect on the commercial fishery.

I might add that that particular area is where the Nanticoke Hydro generating station was located. When they located that station there, there was a lot of concern that it would destroy the fishing industry. Actually, it has been a benefit and it is a reproductive area because of the warm water discharged from the Hydro generating plant itself.

Mr Wildman: And the fish light up the plate for a candlelight dinner.

Mr Miller: I think the quality of the fish is excellent, not like some of the other lakes like Lake Ontario, where they have sport fishing and the fish get so big but they are not able to be put on your plate. I think the quality is important and commercial fishermen have been able to protect that.

I would also like to point out that the closure of the near-shore waters from Port Dover west to Turkey Point that now runs through July and August will be extended to the end of September.

There has been a ban on gill nets in the inner part of Long Point Bay since the early 1970s. The Ministry of Natural Resources has generally received co-operation from commercial fishermen in its effort to monitor the incidental catch on the Great Lakes.

Problems with incidental catch resulted in major changes in the management of commercial fisheries in the eastern end of Lake Ontario last year. For the 1988-89 fishing season, the ministry prohibited the use of gill nets in the eastern basin from 1 May to 30 June, in an area off Brighton from 1 May to 31 July, and in the north channel near Kingston from 1 May to 31 August.

Ministry studies in the area show high incidental catches of lake trout and immature walleye. There is also an experimental commercial walleye harvest at the eastern end of Lake Ontario this year, using live capture gear only.

The ministry had a buyout program from March to December last year for commercial operators who were interested in selling their business to the province. On Lake Huron gill net commercial fishery operators had to convert yellow perch gear to shallow-mesh nets from deep-mesh nets last year in an effort to reduce the incidental catch of salmon.

You can see decisions are made based on local conditions, and as the minister has stated in the past, the decisions are made in the interests of the fisheries resource.

I know the ministry is pursuing an incidental catch policy that will be acceptable to both the commercial and sport fisheries. But some commercial fishermen view the gill net as essential to their livelihood. The elimination of commercial gill nets would increase the operating costs of commercial fishermen and create a huge financial burden. Many fishing operations would be forced out of business, with the result of lost jobs. The cost of conversion to the trap net is estimated to be from $750,000 to $1 million per operation.

These costs would be largely borne by the commercial fishing industry, with further impacts on processors, wholesalers and consumers. The total cost could run into hundreds of millions of dollars, given that 300 to 400 operations may be involved.

In addition, there may be instances where trap nets are not feasible technically. About 80 per cent of the Great Lakes is unfishable with entrapment gear. I think that is an issue that has to be given a lot of consideration. In these cases the cost would be the value of the lost product due to reduction in industry efficiency.

The fisheries resource must be protected and shared. The best way to accomplish this is for anglers and commercial fishermen to work together with government, and I believe that is what is taking place at the present time.

The resolution also calls on the province to accelerate its fish stocking program. Members will be interested to learn that the Ministry of Natural Resources has stocking programs in about 1,000 lakes and rivers in the province. Fish stocking and capital projects associated with it have accounted for about 25 per cent of the fisheries budget over the past few years, with $8 million to $9 million being spent each year on stocking.

I have many other issues to discuss in this debate, but because of the time, I will leave some for my colleague the member for Essex-Kent (Mr McGuigan) to carry on. I know the government is committed to ensuring that both sectors remain viable. I share that commitment, but eliminating the use of commercial gill nets is not going to ensure a viable sport fishery. For this reason, I am unable to support the resolution made by the member for Wellington.

Mr Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate, frankly, with mixed feelings. Before I get into the substance of my presentation, I do want to join with my friend the member for Norfolk (Mr Miller) in expressing good wishes to our friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough and a hope for his speedy recovery.

I want also to congratulate my friend the member for Wellington in introducing this resolution, because I know of his very serious interest in the tourist industry in Ontario and in recreation for the people of this province. I listened with interest to the presentations of my two colleagues, and I must say I have some sympathy with the whereases, if you want to call them that, in the resolution. There is no question that sport fishery is essential to the economic wellbeing of tourism in this province.

Mr McGuigan: Eighty-two per cent is in non-Great Lakes.

Mr Wildman: Interestingly, my friend from Kent was just mentioning what I was going to say next, in that significant fishery in this province, particularly in my part of the province, is in smaller lakes not in the Great Lakes. I agree with my friend’s comment that there is a need to improve the management and quality of aquatic resources in the Great Lakes fishery, even though the majority of tourism and sport fishing relates to the smaller lakes.

There is no question that we do need to improve this fishery on the Great Lakes, and I know the ministry has been making an effort to do that. I have some problems, however, with the comments by my friend from Norfolk with regard to the strategic plan and the management by individual lake he was talking about. I will explain that in a moment.

We had the institution in this province of a resident fishing licence a few years ago. At the time, the Minister of Natural Resources promised that the revenue from that resource, that tax, really, or user fee, would be used for the improvement of the fishery. There is no question that there has been an additional amount of money spent on things like the community fisheries involvement program since that fishing licence was instituted. However, the total amount spent, when you compare it with the total amount spent before the institution of the fishing licence, is not commensurate with the total amount brought in, even when you deduct the administration of the fishing licence program.

I do not think we are getting value for money in the way we might if the minister kept up his resource. The fact is that the minister would like to pretend that by hiring conservation officers, for instance, conservation officers we need --

Mr Miller: And you want to give them more money, too.

Mr Wildman: And we want to give them more money. By hiring conservation officers, he says he is keeping his commitment. Well, he is not. Frankly, conservation officers are responsible for far more than the fishing regulations. In other words, the fishing licence is paying for conservation officers who are implementing parks regulations and hunting regulations. That was not what the fishing licence was for.

Having said that, we have seen that the community fisheries involvement program is a good one. It involves people in the fishery. It involves people in trying to improve habitat and in stocking of lakes, particularly and mainly small lakes. In the big lakes, it has meant salmon production in our area.

I am disappointed, however, that the ministry chose not to continue through CFIP to fund the Sault Ste Marie municipal hatchery, which has done a great deal in our area to improve the fishery. I am also disappointed that while there have been attempts to resolve the difficulties that arise between commercial fishermen and sport fishermen on the Great Lakes by agreements such as the one the member for Norfolk was referring to -- In our area, on eastern Lake Superior, for instance, the commercial fishermen have agreed not to set nets in Batchawana Bay, because it is a significant sport fishery.

It benefits both the tourist industry, the sportsman who wants to get out and do some angling, and the commercial fishermen, because they are making a commitment to the community.

Mr Miller: It is a nursery.

Mr Wildman: Exactly. It is a nursery, as my friend from Norfolk says.

There is a serious problem, though, with incidental catch. To say that it has been handled on a lake-by-lake basis, as my friend from Norfolk indicated, whether he is talking about, in our area, an incidental catch of lake trout, pickerel or walleye, ignores the fact that the Minister of Natural Resources has just recently unilaterally frozen fishing quotas on the Great Lakes for commercial fishermen. He is destroying the regional management process by doing this.

The minister himself and the people on his staff in Toronto have taken over review of quotas on the Great Lakes, removing it from the regional ministry staff. In doing so, in my view, he has effectively limited the input of fishermen, both sport and commercial, in the operation of the commercial quota system year by year.

I do not understand why the minister has decided to take over direction of quota setting rather than continuing to delegate the authority to set quotas to the regional lake managers. If he really wants to do it on a lake-by-lake basis, how can he do that if he does not let the regional managers do their job?

The minister seems to he determined to take direct control. In doing so, though, he has not ensured that the commercial fishermen and the sport fishermen in the various regions of the province have proper input. On Lake Huron, for instance, there are biological data that indicate there should be a 10 percent increase in the quota this year. That is what the regional manager said: There should be a 10 per cent increase in the Lake Huron quotas this year. That is biological information. But what did the minister do? He did not say, “Okay, go ahead.” He froze the quotas.

Mr Miller: He had a good reason.

Mr Wildman: I would like to know what the reason is. I have not heard a good reason yet.

If there are criteria to determine that the biological data that has been developed does not apply and should not be applied, then why does the minister not publish those criteria? I think the minister should go public and justify the limiting of the income of commercial fishermen that results from his freezing of the quotas.

I think the minister should re-examine the quota freeze immediately. We all agree -- commercial fishermen, sport fishermen and conservationists -- that quotas must be based on biological assessments, not political decisions. If the minister is determined not to delegate quota setting to his staff, then he must establish a system for regular meetings with representatives of commercial fishermen from all of the Great Lakes to ensure that the incidental catch problem is dealt with.

Having said that, I am concerned that in concentrating on the Great Lakes, we are ignoring the sport fishermen and the sport fishery on the smaller lakes. Frankly, in our area more should be done in terms of stocking the smaller lakes, because that is where the sport fishery takes place. I support the stocking program on eastern Lake Superior and in the north channel of Lake Huron, but I think we should be trying to direct more of our resources to the smaller lakes to support the sport fishery.

In terms of commercial fishery on the big lakes, there is the problem that entrapment gear is not particularly effective in a big lake like Lake Superior. There is so much area that it just does not work. But if we are going to say that entrapment gear is not appropriate, that the technology, at least, is not adequate yet, then we have to deal with the quota question and the incidental catch questions. We have to deal with them on a regional basis; not even on just a lake-by-lake basis, but on a bay-by-bay basis.

Mr McGuigan: So we are.

Mr Wildman: I understand that. The regional lake managers have been doing that, but a unilateral freeze of quotas across the province does not do that.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up.

Mr McLean: I am pleased to take

part in this debate today. However, if my colleague the member for Hastings Peterborough were not ill, he would have been here in my place. I, along with my colleagues, wish him a speedy recovery.

I want to congratulate the member for Wellington for bringing this resolution forward.

I would like to read this resolution again: “That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing the importance of sport fishing to the economic wellbeing of the province, and the need to improve the management and quality of the aquatic resources in the Great Lakes fishery; the government of Ontario should implement changes in the regulation and management of the Great Lakes fishery to ensure that sport fishing remains viable in Ontario by immediately initiating plans to eliminate the use of commercial gill nets and provide assistance to the commercial fishing industry in converting to trap nets and by accelerating its fish stocking program.”

I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words on this resolution brought forward by my colleague the member for Wellington because, as my party’s critic for Tourism and Recreation, I know about the importance of sport fishing as it relates to the tourism and hospitality industry in Ontario. In fact, it is very important to the overall economic wellbeing of this province.

I agree with my colleague the member for Wellington when he points out that there is a need to improve the management and quality of the aquatic resources in the Great Lakes fishery and I join with him in calling on the government to “implement changes in the regulation and management of the Great Lakes fishery to ensure that sport fishing remains viable in Ontario by immediately initiating plans to eliminate the use of gill nets and provide assistance to the commercial fishing industry to convert to trap nets and by accelerating its fish stocking program.”

As we all know, commercial fishermen on the Great Lakes are licensed by the Ministry of Natural Resources to fish with gill nets for such species as yellow perch, white perch, whitefish and smelt. Unfortunately, other species for which commercial fishermen are not licensed, such as trout and walleye, are inadvertently caught in these gill nets, resulting in the incidental catch of fish that attracts sport fishermen to Ontario from other provinces in Canada and even those from beyond the borders of this country.

I want to make it quite clear that I am not advocating the abolition of the commercial fishing industry. Rather, I am advocating major changes to commercial fishing practices, because I believe this industry is ready, willing and able to allow for the wise use of Ontario’s precious natural resources.

I am of the opinion that the use of gill nets for commercial fishing should be banned. Because of its size and the efficiency of its equipment, the commercial industry has the potential to over-harvest fish stocks drastically, to the detriment of resident and visiting nonresident fishermen. It is my understanding that gill nets kill virtually everything that enters into them, and not just the fish commercial fishermen are licensed to catch.

There are three very specific studies that point to the nonselective deadliness of gill nets: The Lake Huron fisheries assessment unit produced figures that indicated commercial netters incidentally killed 126,455 salmon and trout while fishing for whitefish, chub and perch in 1984 and 1985 in part of Lake Huron; a study conducted by the Ministry of Natural Resources in the eastern

section of Lake Ontario showed that gill net fishermen seeking whitefish were likely to catch three lake trout for every whitefish; a study conducted near Long Point Bay in Lake Erie estimated that perch gill nets caught 7,200 bass from mid-July to mid-August of 1983 and 1984, which is roughly equivalent to one quarter of the total angler harvest.

I sincerely believe that if commercial fishermen switch to trap nets, most of the nontarget fish could be released alive to swim, spawn and provide a challenge to resident and nonresident sport fishermen.

According to Ministry of Natural Resources statistics, there were 983,000 resident and 637,000 nonresident sport fishing licences issued in 1988, which generated about $21 million. I think these statistics are a clear indication of just how vibrant and important sport fishing is to the Ontario tourism industry.

The government must implement changes in the regulations and management of the Great Lakes fishery to ensure that sport fishing remains viable in Ontario. Ontario sport fishing is an extremely important component of Ontario’s tourism and recreation industry, which generates unparalleled economic and employment opportunities, substantially reduces our provincial travel deficit and attracts our rightful share of world travel and tourism revenues.

Sport fishing is extremely important to the tourist industry of Ontario, which in turn is extremely important to the economy of this province. The tourism hospitality industry is the province’s leading service sector industry and one of the top three contributors to Ontario’s economy. Sport fishing and tourism generate billions of dollars of income and foreign exchange earnings for this province annually.

In 1987 the industry had sales of $21.3 billion in Ontario. Travel expenditures in the province totalled $9.3 billion, and that was a 7.6 per cent increase over 1986. That also represents six per cent of the gross provincial product and one out of every 10 jobs. Combined, the tourism and recreation sectors, of which sport fishing plays a major role, account for 1 per cent of employment in Ontario.

I believe the province should follow the lead of many of her neighbours to the south which saw Michigan ban the use of gill nets in 1972, with the exception of Indians in limited and designated areas. New York state banned gill netting in 1986. Indiana has banned gill netting for perch fishing and Ohio banned gill nets for walleye fishing on Lake Erie.

I believe the resolution brought forward by my colleague from Wellington will improve the management and quality of the delicate aquatic resources of our Great Lakes and protect the province’s sport fishing industry.

I believe the use of gill nets for commercial fishing must be phased out in Ontario, with such a phase-out program developed on a regional basis and including such options as:

Ensuring the close monitoring of existing gill net fisheries, in an attempt to reduce incidental catches while maintaining the status quo. Expansion of the gill net study carried out in the eastern sector of Lake Ontario to all of the Great Lakes might prove to be advantageous.

Encourage the conversion from gill nets to live capture gear through various avenues and incentives, including government buyout.

Making the use of gill nets specific to the time of year or a location; for example, gill netting, other than large mesh for carp, is prohibited in the Bay of Quinte and the St Lawrence River.

Authorizing the use of live capture gear only for any commercial fishing licensee and prohibiting the use of gill nets by a specified date.

Recognizing the incidental catch of sport fish by making formal allocation of one or more of these species to the commercial gill net fishery.

Financial assistance to convert from traditional methods of fishing to modernized fish farming.

Transition assistance to commercial fishermen interested in pursuing related business opportunities such as food processing and charter businesses.

Financial assistance to purchase the equipment, licences and quotas of commercial fishermen interested in pursuing nonfishing-related opportunities.

Accelerated fish stocking programs to enhance the tourism, recreation and sport fishing potential of each area of this province.

As my party’s critic for Tourism and Recreation, I believe that changes are required in the regulation and management of the Great Lakes fishery to ensure that both the commercial and sport fishing industries remain viable in Ontario and actually grow and expand in the future. This government cannot ignore the social and economic benefits of these industries and what they bring to Ontario.

I would like to repeat that I am not advocating abolition of the commercial fishing industry in Ontario. What I am advocating is major changes to commercial fishing practices because I really do believe that the commercial fishing industry is quite willing to allow for the wise use of Ontario’s precious and threatened natural resources. We must not leave our children and our children’s children with a legacy of lakes containing few or no species of sport fish.

Tourism is notably absent from the recent throne speech and budget. When the economy slows down, as many predict will eventually happen, it will be increasingly difficult to position tourism as an important element of Ontario’s future economy.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the member for Wellington for bringing this matter for debate and I join my colleagues -- I think everyone in the House -- in wishing a speedy recovery for the member for Hastings-Peterborough. I will begin by pointing out that this government does recognize the importance of sport fishing to the economic wellbeing of Ontario, and as my colleague points out, it is doing a great deal to improve the aquatic resources of the Great Lakes.

I have lived all of my life within sight and sound of Lake Erie, as has my family since the mid-1830s. I remember that portion of Lake Erie in the 1950s was considered to be dead. It is alive and well today thanks to the joint efforts of Canada, the United States and Ontario in cleaning up the lakes.

Even though it is the most productive freshwater fishery in the world and even though Lake Erie produces 60 per cent of the commercial catch in all of Ontario, it was in the early 1800s even more productive. I will just refer members to this book called The Good Years, written by Frank Prothero.

Early reports by explorers and missionaries talk of fish being so numerous that at spawning time streams became clogged with salmon so thickly that piles of rotting fish were left behind. In the 1920s, the Lake Erie herring catch was in the range of 12 million pounds. Whitefish reached almost four million pounds in the 1950s. Pickerel reached 10 million pounds in the early 1950s, crashed in the 1970s and are now about eight million to nine million pounds at the present.

Smelt, a relative newcomer, reached 20 million pounds in the 1960s. In 1954, there were six million pounds of white bass caught, and in 1909 the pike harvest was almost three billion. Catfish, carp and suckers were also harvested. Sturgeon were so abundant in the last century that they were used for fuel and for fertilizer.

The key to heavy harvests of both sport and commercial fishermen is not the elimination of gill nets, but fish management: management of the stocks and management of the environment. The mover of the resolution calls for the elimination of the use of commercial gill nets. I remember a pond net fishery just down the road from where I live. It was the Curtiss Brothers fishery, given up many years ago.

These people had wooden stakes, some as long as 60 feet, which they drove into the lake bed within sight of shore. The stakes lasted only a few years; maybe 10 years. Today they would be difficult to come by, if they were available at all. Just think of the cost of a hydro pole today. If you knock one down with your truck, it is going to cost you about $500.

I remember the open pond net boats and the danger to life they presented to the fishermen compared to the modem enclosed gill net tugs. Trap nets or pond nets cannot be moved to follow the fish, and aside from the costs, as mentioned by my colleague the member for Norfolk, they simply would not be physically able to catch the millions of pounds of fish taken annually from Lake Erie.

I hasten to add that the quota allocated to sport fishermen on Lake Erie has never been taken up. Some 10 years ago, the sport fishermen took up to 20 per cent of their allocated 10 per cent of the catch. Last year, for the first time, the sport fishermen took up just over 80 per cent of their allocation.

There are two communities in my riding of Essex-Kent that owe their existence largely to the commercial fishing industry, although sport fishing is important. I am speaking of the ports of Erieau and Wheatley.

Wheatley is the home of a large fleet of tugs, plus a very extensive fish processing industry. The largest of these processors, Omstead Foods, employs 900 people. Wages in their plants compare favourably with the industrial plants in Tilbury and Windsor. The processing plant and the freezing plant would be measured in acres, not in thousands of square feet.

Starting with frozen deep-battered fish sticks, this company has developed a host of fried and frozen products that today cover a large number of vegetable crops. Most notable is their production of fried onion rings, produced in season from Ontario Spanish-type onions. They also produce gourmet-style frozen finger foods, fried and frozen cauliflower, broccoli and other vegetables, and even some cheese. These items replace imports from the United States. In fact, as much of the production is exported to the United States, the production adds to our balance of payments.

Total production is in the $100 million range from this one plant and presently the nonfish items show a promise of outstripping the fish production. The key to this production is the fish base of their operation. It is instructional to note that the operation is not situated in the Niagara Peninsula, where so much of Ontario’s fruit and vegetables are produced. There is no comparable freezer plant as part of a processing plant in Ontario. Freezer plants are capital-intensive and costly to operate.

It is only through the fact that fish, fruit and vegetables complement each other seasonally that this operation is a commercial success. Members should just stop to think of the change in lifestyle -- TV dinners, microwave ovens and all of this -- which encourages the use of fish, because when you look at the selling of fresh fish through the supermarkets, fresh fish is a very difficult item to market,

whereas the processed is very easy.

Look at the village of Erieau, which is very close to where I live. I want to point out that these communities are very close-knit in their historical attachment to the fishing industry and to their families. Erieau boasts that during the Second World War it had the highest percentage of its population in the armed services of any community in North America. Naturally, most of these people were in the navy.

Trap or impoundment nets would never support this industry. To implement the intention of the resolution, as well meaning as it may be, would destroy not only a fishing industry but also a sector of the vegetables industry in southwestern Ontario.

This company operates a fleet of reefer trucks that cover all of North America, bringing fresh fish from all of the Great Lakes ports to Wheatley and indeed from lakes in the prairie provinces as they transport them to the far corners of North America. A local shipbuilding industry builds ships for the fishing industry and for export to other parts of the world. Hike Metal Products has just completed one of the largest trimaran ships in the world for export to Australia.

I enjoy angling myself. My son is a trophy fishermen, one of the best. Every summer we spend a few hours on Rondeau Bay, one of the best bass fisheries in North America. From my farm background, I would be inclined to keep the catch, but my son, as do many ardent fishermen, practises catch-and-release fishing. I believe many sport fishermen understand that commercial fishermen contribute to the management of the fishery.

Take a look at Lake St Chair. Commercial fishing was banned there many years ago due to mercury pollution. Local fishermen will tell you that for a time, sport fishing success did increase. Today it is declining. Some of the sport fishing charter boats, I am told, have now moved to Lake Erie ports. The reason is that coarse fish, formerly removed by commercial fishermen, are on the increase. White perch spawn in the same year as they are hatched and every year thereafter for three or four years.

The Acting Speaker (Mr M. C. Ray): The next and final speaker is the member for Wellington to conclude the debate.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I assume from the comments that the resolution will not receive support from the government side. In 1987, 1,620,000 people bought sport fishing licences, creating revenues of $21 million for this province. Add to that the hundreds of thousands of anglers who do not require licences, people under 18 and seniors. These numbers will continue to grow if these anglers have the opportunity to catch fish. Our lakes must provide them with that opportunity.

Every 1,000 sport fish that are netted by commercial fishermen deprive 1,000 anglers of the opportunity to catch at least one fish. How can an angler with a single line and one lure hope to compete with thousands of metres of commercial fishing net? Even the most ardent fisherman will give up if there are not any fish to catch and move on to other jurisdictions where they have more enlightened sport fishing regulations.

The SkyDome is sold out for ball games day after day, win or lose, but that will only last for so long, and then if the Jays do not start winning, attendance will diminish. So it is with fishing. For anglers to return again and again, they must have some success, at least once in a while. By supporting this resolution, members will be supporting Ontario becoming the best fishing hole in the world.

We are blessed with having the Great Lakes, the world’s largest body of fresh water right on our doorstep. Surely it is just good common sense that we should be supportive of any efforts that will improve our sport fishing industry. Wise management of our natural resources is a responsibility that we as legislators must share and, hopefully, we will manage it for the betterment of the people we serve.

This resolution, in my opinion, is a step in that direction. I ask for members’ support of this resolution in the hope that if it passes, the Minister of Natural Resources and the government will take some positive measures to enhance our sport fishing industry in Ontario.

With the three minutes I have left, I would like to just make some comments pertaining to the statements made by some of the members. I might just point out that I received the latest statistics which are for 1987, from the Ministry of Natural Resources. They show that the total number of dollars taken in by commercial fishermen was $48,339,000. Of that, $36,457,000 came from Lake Erie.

Mr Miller: Come down to Port Dover, Jack, and we will give you a perch or pickerel dinner. Do you want to take that off the market?

Mr J. M. Johnson: Those two members do have a vital concern in Lake Erie and I share that concern, but Lake Ontario, Lake Huron and Lake Superior are slightly different. There are not that many commercial dollars there. Surely we can move in that direction to support the sport fishing industry to a larger extent than we are doing at the present time. The ministry has made efforts in eastern Lake Ontario to buy out some of the commercial fishermen. They have been able to convince some of the fishermen there to convert to trap nets. We do not have to do it across the province if we can move in that direction.

I might just mention that John Power, a writer for the Toronto Star, mentioned that in 1980 a survey was conducted on the 1979 Great Salmon Hunt. There were 7,000 participants who spent in excess of $10 million. Projecting these figures on to the 1988-89 scene, there are now three times as many anglers involved in the salmon hunt. Add in the 400 charter boats on the lake and 10 years of inflation, and he estimates that the amount spent now is in the vicinity of $100 million, twice the amount of money is taken in in all the commercial fishing, and that is only in the one area of salmon.

The member for Norfolk mentioned the problem of Lake Erie and I support that; it is a problem. To the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman), a northern member, if we can entice individuals in Toronto to become interested in fishing in Lake Ontario, there is a very good possibility those individuals will be hooked on fishing and will indeed go up north to try fishing in Algoma. Did the member catch that? Algoma. As a matter of fact, I might mention that my son-in-law is on a 10-day fishing trip up north, in Algoma. I am sure the economy will improve dramatically.

I would also like to mention that the member for Simcoe East (Mr McLean) made the most intelligent and reasonable speech on this issue of all the members here. Maybe I am prejudiced, but I do not think so. He lives on the shore of Lake Simcoe and owns a boat. I am sure he spends much of his time out fishing.

I encourage members to vote for this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: The time allotted for this ballot item has expired The next order, please.

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT, 1989

Mrs Grier: I would like to reserve five minutes at the end of my allotted time to comment on the contributions of other members.

The Acting Speaker: Could you please introduce your motion first.

Mrs Grier moved second reading of Bill 12,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The member will be reminded that she has up to 20 minutes for her presentation and may reserve the five minutes she has indicated.

Mrs Grier: I am sorry. I did not realize I had to move it. I should have done that, because it is certainly not the first time I have moved second reading of

an act respecting environmental rights in Ontario. In fact, it is the third time I have had the privilege of having this act debated during private members’ hour.

Mr Miller: We have had this a lot of times.

Mrs Grier: I hope it might be the last time, not because I do not enjoy the experience, the debate and the exchange, but because I hope that this time the bill will move beyond second reading into committee hearings and eventually become the law of this province because as I am being reminded by the government members, the idea of a bill of rights is not new. In fact, it is exactly 10 years ago since the first environmental bill of rights was introduced in this place, by a Liberal member at that point because they were in opposition. It has been introduced many times since my very many members of both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party.

Mr McGuigan: And it will be again.

Mrs Grier: And it will be again. It will continue to be introduced, it will continue to be supported and it will continue to be pushed for by this party, because we believe very sincerely that if we are truly to get to the bottom of the problems affecting our environment and truly to do something significant about them, then we need to have rights to a clear environment, which we do not have in the law of this province at this time.

Bill 12, which we are debating this morning, is different than the previous bills of rights I have introduced. They were based completely on the versions that had been introduced in the early 1980s by the member for Bruce (Mr Elston) when he was the critic for the Liberal Party. What we have before us today is what I have called a new and improved environmental rights bill, but the principles and the fundamental basics of the bill are unchanged.

An environmental bill of rights would give citizens the right to go to court to protect the environment where damage is being done. It would ensure environmental decisions are not made without notifying the community and without citizens having a right to a public hearing. It would protect workers from reprisals if they release information about pollution or if they refuse to do work they believe violates environmental law.

Surely these are principles we all support, principles that were supported by all parties in this House on the previous occasions when we had a debate on second reading of this bill, principles that were supported by 89 per cent of the members elected to this House in 1987.

The Project for Environmental Priorities prior to the 1985 election and prior to the 1987 election circulated questionnaires that it asked all candidates to fill in. One of those questions was, “Would you support an environmental bill of rights for the province of Ontario?” and 89 per cent of those elected on 10 September 1987 indicated they would support an environmental bill of rights in Ontario.

We might well ask, “Why do we not have one?”

Mr R. F. Johnston: Why?

Mrs Grier: I cannot quite understand it but I hope we can rectify that problem very shortly.

The purpose of the act is spelled out very clearly in sections 2 and 3, and I would like to just put them on the record:

2. “The purpose of this act is to ensure the health and sustainability of the environment of Ontario, and in particular:

“(

a) to facilitate the participation of the people of Ontario in decisions affecting the environment and their ability to protect their common interest in a healthy and sustainable environment;

“(

b) to recognize the right of the people of Ontario to an environment that is adequate for their health and wellbeing and sustainable into the future; and

“(

c) to recognize the obligations of the province of Ontario to conserve and maintain the resources of the province for present and future generations.”

Section 3 enunciates the right of the people of Ontario “to a healthy and sustainable environment, including clean air and water, to the conservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment, and to the protection of ecosystems and biological diversity.”

It points out that the province “as trustee of Ontario’s public lands, waters and natural resources, shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of present and future generations.”

It declares that “it is in the public interest to provide every person with an adequate remedy to protect and conserve the environment and the public trust therein from contamination and degradation.”

So it gives the citizens the right to have a healthy and sustainable environment and it provides them with some tools and mechanisms to do the job.

If you ask anyone in this province whether they have the right to a healthy environment, they will probably answer yes because people believe that is a right, that they ought to be able to have clean air, clean water and a clean land in which to live. But in fact it is not laid down in any of the pieces of legislation of this province, and it is not laid down that the citizens have the right to have that legislation which does exist enforced. They have to rely on the Minister of the Environment to enforce the legislation. If the minister chooses not to enforce it, they have no way to oblige him to do so.

The minister has a power, but he does not have a duty and it is not mandatory that he take action.

Let me make it very clear that this bill does not relieve the minister of the responsibility to take action to protect the environment, but it does give him an army of enforcement officials. It provides him with volunteers in the form of every citizen of the province who is concerned about environmental contamination and who wants to do something about environmental contamination.

Surely I do not have to tell any member of this House that the public wants a clean environment, that the public, when given the opportunity, will take advantage of that opportunity. We only have to look at the overwhelming success of the blue box program to know that is in fact the case.

As I have said, the previous environmental bills I have introduced were drafted almost a decade ago. During the debates on those pieces of legislation, government members have supported them in principle but raised objections to the actual provisions of the bills. If the members go back in Hansard to the previous debates, they will find that members on the government side found flaws in the bills, many of them quite legitimately pointed out, and they also said that much that the bills were asking to have done had already been accomplished by the record of this government.

In responses to the very many environmental groups and individuals who wrote to the minister urging him to support my previous environmental bill of rights, the minister spelled out quite clearly, as he is wont to do, how much he had accomplished in the time he had been in office. He spelled out the areas where he felt his actions had already superseded the requirements of the original environmental bills of rights.

He said, “In this regard, penalty provisions under the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act have been increased, a computerized system to record and track complaints is being set up, a comprehensive policy on public consultation is under development.”

“In addition,” said the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), “the Ministry of the Attorney General is in the process of formulating a policy for funding citizens in environmental hearings, and the freedom-of-information act, which comes into force in January 1988, gives citizens access to all government documents.”

However, the minister went on to say that in keeping with the government’s commitment to strong environmental legislation and recognizing an environmental bill of rights as an important initiative, he had supported my previous bills and looked forward to the bill being brought before the standing committee on resources development for review, and he was confident the legislation would be improved and strengthened by this review.

That letter was written 26 January 1988 to the Federation of Ontario Naturalists.

Unfortunately, what happened was that the resources committee was never able to

schedule the time to have that detailed review. Somehow, the two days of public hearings I had requested of the committee could never be fitted in. So, working very closely with the Canadian Environmental Law Association and with significant assistance from legislative counsel, what I have introduced today is a new and improved bill of rights that takes into account the comments of the Minister of the Environment.

Members will notice that I have deleted from the bill that is before us today the

section on access to information, which as the minister quite correctly pointed out has already been enacted elsewhere, and the

section on intervener funding. I deleted that

section with some reserve because I am concerned that the intervener funding program that is in place is only a pilot project and is fairly limited in its application. My purpose was to try to avoid any further objections from the minister and to give him a bill that he felt he could support unreservedly.

The

section on class actions has been greatly simplified to take into account discussions that I know the Attorney General (Mr Scott) is having around legislation the government might introduce in that regard. The bill has been streamlined and updated and has taken into account those actions already taken by this government.

The bill has, however, been significantly strengthened by incorporating the whole concept of sustainable development, the concept first enunciated by the Brundtland commission, with which all members are familiar, and a concept supported in another private members’ debate when the House adopted a resolution supporting the principles of the Brundtland commission.

Another significant change in my bill is the

section on employee rights, which has been changed to reflect those sections of the Environmental Protection Act that already give employees the right to refuse to pollute. There was an inconsistency between the provisions in my original bill and the existing Environmental Protection Act and the new bill removes that inconsistency.

Having worked to remove the objections the government had, I hope I will now have its full-scale support and that we will move, as I say, beyond second reading. There is certainly in the community -- the environmental groups, the trade union movement and citizens’ groups -- widespread support for a piece of legislation such as I have introduced today.

Letters in support of a bill of rights to the minister, to members of the resources committee and to members on all sides of this House demonstrate that groups, whether their primary concern is a local issue or whether it is a more general environmental group looking at the whole aspect of how we can protect and improve our environment, feel that a fundamental tool that is required is an environmental bill of rights.

I was interested to find that in a recent newsletter from the Ontario Waste Management Corp based on a speech given by Dr Chant, there was significant support for just what I am suggesting today. That newsletter in May 1989 was entitled Environment and the Law and was introduced by a sentence that says:

“One of the most important policy issues facing Ontario or any jurisdiction concerns the protection of the environment and the role of the legal profession in safeguarding human health and quality of life.”

It goes on to point out the complexity and the immense scale of the environmental problems facing us today and points out in conclusion that: “the role of the judiciary and the legal system is becoming one of the major issues on the environmental agenda. There are a number of possible improvements in both form and content that could improve the resolution of environmental disputes.”

As the first of those resolutions, the OWMC newsletter points to intervener funding, and as I have said, we now have a limited system of intervener funding in place in this province.

Second, to quote from the newsletter, they say: “The idea of an environmental bill of rights warrants careful consideration. It could open the door to class actions on environmental issues, as can be done in the United States. Why should an individual not be able to sue on behalf of the environment, whether or not all people are suffering exactly the same damage? The courts long ago learned how to protect themselves against frivolous actions in civil litigation matters. They could easily do the same on environmental matters.”

There are concrete examples in this province that were given at a press conference just last Friday by representatives of Greenpeace, examples where in Cornwall, in the Kimberly-Clark pulp and paper bill on Moberley and in the Algoma Steel Corp in Sault Ste Marie, cases of pollution, of not adhering to regulations, of the regulations not being tough enough to really protect the environment, are not being acted upon by the Minister of the Environment, but cases where, as Greenpeace said, if there had been an environmental bill of rights, citizens or environmental organizations could have taken action in order to prevent these things from happening.

I think the time has come in this province not just to support an environmental bill of rights in principle in private members’ hour on second reading, but to support sending that bill on to the standing committee on resources development and then making sure that the majority of the members on that committee vote to set aside time to have deputations, to listen to the concerns that will be expressed on all sides about the implications of a bill of rights and to work constructively to improve the private member’s bill I have introduced today -- I am sure it is capable of being improved -- but to make sure we move forward and put in place a piece of legislation that will give the people of this province what they are asking for, the right to a clean environment.

Mrs Marland: I take pleasure in rising today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus to support this bill. Obviously, I am doing it in the same capacity as Environment critic for the Progressive Conservative caucus as I did when I rose to support Bill 13, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore’s predecessor bill, last fall.

Currently, individual citizens do not have a right to take legal action against a polluter in Ontario courts. The public does have the right to prosecute a polluter for violations of a provincial law, but the process is extremely difficult. A civil suit can be filed against a polluter only if the plaintiff can prove personal loss and damage. Environmentalists believe that Bill 12 will make it much easier for citizens to fight pollution when the government chooses not to.

Concerns have been raised that a bill of rights would lead to a floodgate of claims and many would be of dubious validity.

The experience in Michigan, which passed the Michigan Environmental Protection Act in 1970,

an act which is very similar to this one, has in fact been positive. In its first 13 years, a total of 185 actions involving the Michigan Environmental Protection Act had been filed with the courts or with the state administrative agencies.

In the words of Paul Muldoon of the Canadian Environmental Law Association: “When we look at the United States jurisdictions with an environmental bill of rights, there has not been a flood of cases. The vast majority are full of merit and worthy to be brought before the courts.”

Bill 12 clarifies and strengthens the wording of the provisions which were present in the previous bill, Bill 13, and deletes provisions which have already been acted on by the government through other pieces of legislation.

Under

section 2, the bill’s purpose is now clearly stated, “‘To ensure the health and sustainability of the environment of Ontario and...to recognize the right of the people of Ontario to an environment that is adequate for their health and wellbeing and sustainable into the future.”

This

section is as a result of the influence of the 1987 Brundtland report prepared by the World Commission on Environment and Development which supported the goal of sustainable economic development. Sustainable development is defined as development that ensures that the use of resources and the environment today does not damage prospects for their use by future generations. I think that is a very simple goal for everyone, and a very obvious one.

Bill 12 would also allow individuals to take polluters to court even though they were not directly affected by the actions of the polluter. Establishing a prima facie case against the polluter is notoriously difficult. It would make it easier and require polluters to provide an explanation for their actions. It would allow an action to be brought in the Supreme Court of Ontario as a civil matter against polluters.

It would give workers greater protection from reprisals if they refuse work orders to pollute or report

an act of pollution by an employer. It would also provide for public notice and review of certain approvals, permits and other environment-related orders before they come into force.

I think it is significant that we look for a few moments at the Liberal record in terms of the Liberal Party, not the Liberal government.

This is actually the 10th anniversary of the introduction of an environmental bill of rights. The first introduction was by Dr Stuart Smith, who was then, in 1979, the Liberal opposition leader. During the second reading of his bill, Bill 185,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, Dr Smith stated: “What we do to our environment, the kind of planet we leave for our children and the children who follow them is something that is very real, it’s something people will be able to look back on and either thank us for or blame us for, depending on the actions we take.”

Dr Smith also said. “The occasion to debate this particular bill is one of very real importance to me and I believe it will go down as a day of some importance in the history of people’s attempt to come to grips with the industrial age and to make this planet a liveable situation for generations to follow us.” I think the sentiments, obviously, of Dr Stuart Smith, are sentiments which we would all support and believe in.

The member for Bruce reintroduced Dr Smith’s bill in 1982, three years later. During debate on the bill in the standing committee on resources development on 1 June 1982, the member stated: “Let me make the Liberal Party’s position quite clear. I have introduced a bill entitled, the Ontario Environmental Rights Bill. The bill is an updated version of the bill introduced by my former leader. It provides for access to government information on pollutant emissions and places a burden of proof on polluters. Furthermore, it will allow a citizen to sue a polluter in cases where the government refused to do so.”

I think that background of the Liberal Party’s position on this kind of bill in Ontario speaks for itself. Therefore. I am quite sure we will experience again, this morning, the unanimous support of the House for Bill 12, because as we know, we did sustain that support on 10 December 1987 when Bill 13, the predecessor, was passed on second reading.

It has been very interesting, as the mover of this bill said this morning, how we wanted, both of us, with eager anticipation, as members of the resources development committee, for that hill to be placed before that committee It is amazing how, since 1987, we have not had any time allocated by the Liberal government House leader to make sure the environmental bill of rights did, in fact, get the hearing for which it was referred to that committee. We certainly hope that will change this morning.

I would like to say that when I supported that bill on 10 December 1987, in identifying one of the objectives of the bill as establishing the government as a trustee of public lands, I did say that we have to be sure the government can act in the public interest in preserving the ecological and environmentally special areas. I also said that I supported the provisions which broadened the right to sue beyond those who had suffered direct personal harm, and I stated that this bill will allow actions that have the interests of future generations at heart.

One other comment I would like to read into the record here this morning is that Paul Muldoon of the Canadian Environmental Law Association has indicated support for the bill in principle, but suggested that there were several technical errors that should have been cleaned up. He has also expressed concern over the removal of the intervener funding provisions, but he also recognizes why that happened, as do I, that would then construe the bill as being a money bill. Obviously it is not the privilege of those of us in opposition to present bills that include policies dealing with money and funding.

However, I think it is terribly important that intervener funding be part of the ongoing legislation of any government of this province. I also think that when Mr Muldoon suggested that citizens be given the right to review a standard periodically to account for changes in technology and setting standards, that is another important aspect that should be considered.

In closing my comments this morning, I want to say that we will look forward to hearing from all parties who are interested in this subject in the very near future, when this bill is referred to the resources development committee, successfully this time.

Mr McClelland: The concept of an environmental bill of rights is something which I personally very strongly support. I am also very pleased to see that the statement of purpose of this bill presented today adopts the principle of sustainable development. The Brundtland commission on environment and economy has focused world attention on the interdependence of the economy and our fragile environment. There is increasing evidence that we face dire consequences if we cannot redirect our economic aspirations towards environmentally sustainable development.

Ontario’s support for that principle, the principle of sustainable development, was made evident last fall through the announcement by the Premier (Mr Peterson) of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy. The round table will not only be an adviser to government, but an influence on all sectors of society and a catalyst for projects which demonstrate the viability of environmentally sound development.

The government also supported Bill 13, the previous incarnation of the current Bill 12. In fact, the two bills are in large measure the same.

The need for a new, improved bill has arisen because several key parts of Bill 13 were rendered redundant as a consequence of policies adopted in legislation passed by this government, in addition to the changes that we have realized over the past number of years and the new realities in terms of environmental law and the environmental concerns that we share as a society.

For example, with respect to some of the legislation that has been passed by our government,

section 15 of Bill 3 dealt with access to information. That issue is already comprehensively addressed by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The freedom-of-information act took effect on 1 January 1988. That act ensures that disclosure is the rule rather than the exception in Ontario now. In addition, the Occupational Health and Safety Act requires that information on toxic substances be made available in the workplace.

The environmental bill of rights proposes full public participation in environmental issues. The Ministry of the Environment has developed a public consultation process which recognizes and ensures the right of members of the public to have a meaningful role in environmental protection and management. The ministry uses a wide range of consultation activities to meet the needs of individuals, groups and communities. We have an open exchange of information, and that is a key part of this process.

The Ministry of the Environment has developed information and kits to help run effective public participation programs. Key people within the ministry are being trained in public participation skills so they can effectively respond to communities and work with communities. Public meetings are being held, by way of example, on control orders.

The ministry also publishes for public review all regulations proposed under the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, commonly known as MISA, the government’s water cleanup program. Independent environmental experts on the MISA advisory committee also add a powerful public presence to this flagship of environmental reform.

Most major programs being proposed by the ministry are released for public comment. Examples include the white paper on MISA, the clean air program and the pesticides notification program. The Ministry of Natural Resources also has developed a public consultation policy under our government.

Another area where Bill 13 was overtaken by advance is the area of intervener funding, and that has been referred to today. The Intervener Funding Project Act was tabled by our Attorney General in June 1988 and has recently been proclaimed. That act provides funding to members of the public who act as interveners before selected administrative tribunals. The intent of that legislation is to enhance the process of public input by enabling interveners to participate in proceedings by providing financial assistance.

This act formalized the Ministry of the Environment’s policy of providing intervener funding, which had been in effect for the entire time our government has been in office. The government, by way of example, has recently provided $450,000 to interveners in the class environmental assessment on timber management now under way in Thunder Bay. This is in addition to the $300,000 that was already provided to interveners. Although characterized as “limited” by my good friend from Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs Grier), I think that is a substantial contribution.

This government has also provided funds in other cases, such as the Petro-Sun/SNC incinerator hearing, the Derry Road bypass, the Halton landfill, and of course, the Ontario Waste Management Corp’s proposed facility. Public access to government has been a major policy objective in Ontario since 1985, and the Intervener Funding Project Act is a key instrument in this regard.

As I see it, one of the prime goals of an environmental bill of rights is to ensure that the polluter pays. While the government has been ensuring precisely that in Ontario over the past number of years, enforcement is the engine that drives environmental action in Ontario.

Ontario’s environmental efforts punish polluters. The Ministry of the Environment is currently in the process of doubling the size of its investigations and enforcement branch. The environmental laws themselves were strengthened in 1986 under the new penalties bill. Maximum daily fines were increased 10-fold for the most often used prosecutions, providing for fines of up to $500,000 a day for the most serious offences. We also made it possible for judges to jail offenders for up to one year. We removed immunities that municipalities and government ministries and agencies had from Ontario pollution laws.

I think the results speak for themselves. In 1984-85, the year before this government took office, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment initiated 54 prosecutions in total. Since then, prosecutions have increased almost fourfold to 211 prosecutions in fiscal 1987-88. The 1988-89 fiscal year saw another increase in prosecutions.

Fines are increasing as well. As judges begin to exercise their prerogatives under the 1986 legislation, we see a dramatic increase in fines. Fines in the tens of thousands of dollars are no longer unusual events and six-figure fines are being levied ever more frequently by judges sensitive to the greater value society now places on a clean environment.

There are two other key sections of the environmental bill of rights which deal with the concepts of standing and class action. As noted by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that these concepts are currently under consideration by the Ontario Law Reform Commission and our Attorney General. The Ontario Law Reform Commission should have a report on standing available this summer. That will be a very useful analysis of this issue and will be carefully reviewed by our government.

The Attorney General has also been reviewing the concept of class action in Ontario generally, and the concept of class action may have much wider application than strictly the environmental field.

The environmental bill of rights which has been introduced today by our friend from Etobicoke-Lakeshore is a valuable initiative and one which we as a government support very strongly in its principle and in its concept.

Ms Bryden: This is a very important private member’s bill before us.

I would remind the House that in 1980, I introduced the first bill calling for the establishment of an environmental Magna Carta, which is very similar in concept to the environmental bills of rights that have come in recent years. The member for York South (Mr B Rae) and all my successors as Environment critics have introduced such bills and all of them have been defeated. The bill from the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore is the latest recognition of the pressing need for an environmental bill of rights.

We have been reminded that Stuart Smith and the member for Bruce introduced environmental bills of rights. They were members of the Liberal Party, one of them, Dr Smith, when it was in opposition and one of them since this government took over. So there is good reason for the members opposite to support this bill and to admit that not only has its time come, but it is long overdue.

Environmental polls show that large majorities support strong action to protect our environment and maintain a healthy environment for all of us and for future generations.

This bill will permit individuals to sue the government or government agencies if they feel their environment has been degraded. It is an important step in making governments accountable if they fail to protect the environment. Such suits are allowed in the United States. Why are we waiting so long in this province? I certainly intend to support this bill.

In Ontario, we do not even allow class actions by groups who feel that they have been harmed by government failures to stop environmental pollution and degradation. They still have to prove a monetary loss for each person affected in any sort of group action. This bill has a separate clause on class actions, which, along with class-action legislation, is very necessary and which we hope the Attorney General will bring in soon.

The only action that could be taken against a government official was to charge the person with a violation of the Environmental Protection Act. This act was supposed to be our flagship act on environmental protection. It was introduced by the Progressive Conservative government. Unfortunately, it has not been changed very much by the Liberal government.

It has proved to be more of a paper tiger than we would have liked. It established an environmental assessment process which was supposed to require public hearings if there were serious objections to any proposal affecting the environment, but there were several flaws in the process. First of all, most of the environmental hearings have been a David-and-Goliath exercise without sufficient intervener funding for the groups opposing the actions of governments and proponents of proposals which affect the environment.

It has been weak in enforcement. The Minister of Transportation and Communications in 1981 was actually charged with failure to comply with the act because he did not submit proposed highway plans to environmental assessment. He was actually fined. Perhaps he should have gone to jail. That is the only way in which the objectives of the environmental protection legislation could be enforced. This will be another and better way, more open to the public to participate.

Another thing that is lacking is the public disclosure of plans, proposals and inspection results. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act may help to get some of this material, but it is still a cumbersome and costly process and fairly new in operation.

The exemptions from environmental assessment, which were given frequently by both the Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments, have been a very great weakness in that environmental protection legislation. The persons granting those exemptions would, under this act, be required to justify them more precisely and with public input before they are granted.

Bill 12 also provides for public notice and review of certain approvals, permits or other environment-related orders before the approvals, permits or orders come into force and for regular review by the Environmental Assessment Board of all regulations affecting the environment. This is a very important section. In the past, the people affected by all these orders often did not find out about them until they were passed and in effect. It is difficult to get them amended in such circumstances.

Another very important provision in the bill is the new

section 5, which deals with employee rights and prohibits an employer from disciplining or dismissing an employee who reports to any person

an act that contaminates or degrades the environment.

One of my first cases after I was elected in 1985 was a complaint from a constituent who had the courage to report a serious environmental violation by a local factory where he worked. The employer was permitting toxic fluids from the operation to be discharged into a ditch which flowed into a nearby river. The employee had protested this action to the employer as being environmentally degrading, but he was told it was none of his business.

When he did report the action to the environmental authorities in the city and in the province, he lost his job. This act would prevent not only dismissal in such cases, but any kind of disciplinary action, threat or intimidation of the employee. This is a very necessary section.

It is time the Liberal members took the stand which was endorsed by 89 per cent of all candidates in the last provincial election. It is time the government moved beyond lipservice to protect our environment by putting in the kind of legislation which will make the government and government agencies accountable for actions and regulations which fail to protect our environment.

It will not hamper sustainable development, but will enable the public to be an active partner in ensuring that all environmental issues and development of a healthy environment are considered in all development plans. This is the most important part of the bill, I think, to make sure that environmental considerations have equal place with all other considerations in development plans.

I would urge all members of the House to support Bill 12 and I hope that once it has passed second reading, the government will quickly bring it forward for third reading, so that we will not wait any longer for this very important kind of legislation.

Mr McLean: I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in this debate on a private member’s bill concerning environmental rights in Ontario.

As members are no doubt aware, Bill 12,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, permits an action to be brought in the Supreme Court of Ontario by any person for the protection of the environment. The bill also provides for public notice and review of certain approvals, permits or other environment-related orders before the approvals, permits or orders come into force, and for regular review by the Environmental Assessment Board of all regulations affecting the environment.

In addition, the bill prohibits an employer from dismissing an employee who reports to any person

an act that contaminates or degrades the environment. This bill also amends the Environmental Protection Act to expand the scope of the protection provided to employees who refuse to pollute, by adding several statutes to the list set out in subsection 134b(2) of that act.

As I said earlier, this new environmental bill of rights permits an action to be brought before the Supreme Court of Ontario by any person for the protection of the environment in the civil court, rather than the criminal court, thereby lowering the required standard of proof from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “on the balance of probabilities” and making the establishment of the case much easier. Under this bill, defendant polluters will no longer be afforded a defence of failure to establish a causal link when it is clear that they, as a segment of multiple polluters, are discharging similar contaminants.

Where no standards exist for the control of the discharge of a particular contaminant -- an example is the discharge of vinyl chloride -- the act is intended to provide an independent cause of action to an individual and the courts may set interim standards for unregulated contaminants.

The bill also provides for public notice and review of certain approvals, permits or other environment-related orders before the approvals, permits or orders come into force, and for regular review by the Environmental Assessment Board of all regulations affecting the environment. In addition, the bill prohibits an employer from dismissing an employee for reporting to any person

an act that contaminates or degrades our environment.

Under

section 2, the bill’s purpose is now clearly stated; “…to ensure the health and sustainability of the environment of Ontario” and to “…recognize the right of the people of Ontario to an environment that is adequate for their health and wellbeing and sustainable into the future.” This is a result of the influence of the 1987 Brundtland report and does not alter the impact of this bill.

This bill also amends the Environmental Protection Act to expand the scope of the protection provided to employees who refuse to pollute, by adding several statutes to the list set out in subsection 134b(2) of that act This subsection states that no employer shall dismiss, discipline, penalize or intimidate an employee because that employee has complied with the Environmental Protection Act and Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act of Canada, the Ontario Water Resources Act or the Pesticides Act.

Bill 12 adds the Conservation Authorities Act, the Consolidated Hearings Act, 1981, the Drainage Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, the Mining Act, the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Ontario Waste Management Corporation Act, 1981, the Pits and Quarries Control Act and the Planning Act, 1983.

I would like to state categorically that I support Bill 12,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights Ontario, because we must ensure that the government can act in the public interest in preserving the ecological and environmentally special areas.

I am pleased to see that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has shown a clear interest in the protection and preservation of our precious environment, which she has shown for a long time, by introducing Bill 12,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, because the government, through the Minister of the Environment, has clearly not shared the same concerns in the past. What we get from the Minister of the Environment are half-baked schemes such as the Cleantario lottery fund and recycled promises that are rarely acted on.

I must admit that Bingo Bradley does an excellent job of talking about the subject whenever he is questioned about what he proposes to do to protect and preserve our fragile environment for future generations in this province, but what he says and what he actually does only amount to a hill of garbage.

The throne speech also makes reference to the government establishing a comprehensive waste reduction strategy aimed at reducing solid waste by 50 per cent by the year 2000. This reference was only a reannouncement of a recent recycling strategy which includes mandatory recycling. Nothing has happened since, and it should be noted that mandatory recycling was something the same government voted against, when my colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland) proposed it in her private member’s bill last fall.

Bill 12 is a breath of fresh air from my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, because the government has failed miserably in the environmental area. The government’s efforts to solve the garbage disposal crisis facing the greater Toronto area have resulted in pitting one neighbouring region against another and a threat to short circuit the process for environmental assessment.

In conclusion, I would like to repeat that I will be supporting second reading of Bill 12,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, because I believe it is important that we provide employees with some form of protection if they are to report

an act that contaminates or degrades the precious environment of Ontario. If the government expects people to do its job, then we must give them protection.

As well, I sincerely believe this bill will go a long way towards ensuring the health and sustainability of Ontario’s environment, and it will recognize the right of the people in this province to an environment that is adequate for their health and wellbeing and is sustainable into the future.

Ms Hart: I am pleased to participate in this debate, as I am a strong supporter of the concept of an environmental bill of rights. Control of pollution and a greater role for the public in protecting the environment are top priorities for me.

In fact, Bill 12, which we have before us today, is a reworked version of Bill 13, which I supported at first and second readings. Liberals have promoted environmental rights legislation ever since Stuart Smith introduced the first version of this bill in 1979, and we still support it.

Because the government has been moving forward quickly to enact tough environmental legislation, this bill had to be revised to reflect these changes. For example, Bill 12, as tabled by the honourable member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, is advertised as giving citizens the right to go to court to protect the environment where damage is being done. I must point out that in December 1986, Bill 112 was enacted to broaden and increase the penalty provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act, and applies in private prosecutions as well as ministry prosecutions. Bill 112 also eliminated crown immunity under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Bill 12 is also described as protecting workers from reprisals if they release information about pollution or if they refuse to do work that they believe violates environmental laws. In fact, since 1983, under the Environmental Protection Act, workers have had the right to report any environmental concerns over their employers to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, According to this whistle-blowing provision,

section 134b, it is an offence to prevent employees from complying with any of the environmental acts or to prevent employees from co-operating with the enforcement of the acts.

Ontario employees are using this right and are turning over records of illegal activities to the government. Companies are being sued for improper dismissal when they fire whistle-blowing employees. Companies and individuals in the province have taken notice of the active enforcement of environmental laws and are reacting accordingly. The Ministry of the Environment receives a great many inquiries from companies that are voluntarily coming forward to ensure that their activities meet the requirements of the law. Many companies are doing environmental audits to ensure compliance with Ontario’s laws.

This is new; it has not happened in the past. This new corporate attitude tells us that vigorous enforcement is getting out the right message.

Mrs Grier: Let me start by thanking the members who have participated in this debate today and by saying how much I appreciate the support on all sides for the principles of the bill that is before us.

I hope that acknowledgement will not be diminished if I say that I rather regret the fact that the member for Brampton North (Mr McClelland), the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, used his time in the usual rather self-congratulatory litany of progress that has been made. I acknowledge that in my comments; I know that progress has been made. This act reflects that by having eliminated some of those areas that have already been dealt with. But it does not eliminate the need for legislation of this kind and I would have liked to have seen some debate on the various things that are left in the bill, rather than acknowledgement of those that have been removed.

The Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy was very clear in its press release last week, saying that a number of barriers still exist which prevent citizens from halting polluting activities which impair the quality of the environment, such as the ability to ask the court to prevent pollution damage.

In other instances the public remains excluded from many important environmental decisions such as the granting of pollution permits. The provisions that give citizens the power to go to court without having to prove their standing are contained in this act and are still required.

The parliamentary assistant to the minister talked at length about the improved public consultation process that we have and I acknowledge that. But there are many ways in which that public consultation process is avoided. Let me speak of an instance with which I am very familiar and which is dear to my heart in my own riding. I had asked the minister for environmental assessment of a major project to be constructed on the waterfront, which involves lake-filling and a lot of changes in the shoreline in an area that is already seriously contaminated.

The minister refused an environmental assessment but said that the city of Etobicoke should prepare an environmental management master plan, the terms of reference of which would have to be approved by the Minister of the Environment.

Those terms of reference make no mention of public consultation. If we had had it designated under the Environmental Assessment Act, yes, I agree, there would have been lots of opportunities for public consultation. But for the minister to get around that act and to put in place a process to define public amenities on the waterfront and to exclude from that consideration any public consultation or public process, I think shows how weak are some of the safeguards that do exist in the legislation that we have.

I am going to ask that this private member’s bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development, because I acknowledge, as did the members of the government who have spoken, that there are areas where it could be changed, improved and strengthened. I think that is the reason for sending it to a committee, so that people who agree with the principle but have these problems with the details, and people who disagree with the principles, can come and make their concerns heard. We can, as I said before, emerge from that process with a strengthened bill, with an improved bill, and with a bill which really gives the citizens of this province the rights they demand.

The Speaker: It appears that this completes the comments on the two items before the House this morning.

GREAT LAKES FISHERY

The House divided on Mr J. M. Johnson’s resolution 13, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Allen, Brandt, Bryden, Callahan, Charlton, Cooke, D. R., Cousens, Dietsch, Ferraro, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Keyes, Lupusella, Mahoney, Marland, Martel, McClelland, McLean, Philip, Runciman, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wilson.

Nays

Ballinger, Black, Bossy, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Collins, Cooke, D. S., Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Grier, Hart, Henderson, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Mancini, Matrundola, McGuigan, Miller, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Oddie Munro, O’Neill, Y., Pelissero, Pouliot, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Ruprecht, Sola, Sullivan, Wildman.

Ayes 26; nays 34.

The Speaker: We will now deal with ballot item 12.

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT, 1989

The House divided on Mrs Grier’s motion for second reading of Bill 12, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Allen, Ballinger, Black, Bossy, Bradley, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Carrothers, Charlton, Chiarelli, Collins, Cooke, D.R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Cousens, Dietsch, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Grier, Harris, Hart, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Keyes, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, Martel, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McLean, Miller, Morin-Strom, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Pelissero, Philip, Polsinelli, Pouliot, Rae. B., Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Ruprecht, Sola, South, Sterling, Sullivan, Villeneuve, Wildman, Wilson.

Ayes 66; nays 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried, and have some concern about the Speaker’s hearing.

Mrs Grier: Could I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development?

Interjections.

Mr R. F. Johnston: What? Shutting out the public? My, you guys are getting arrogant.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough West has not been asked for any comment at the moment.

I will remind members that standing order 71 states that a private member’s public bill shall be sent to committee of the whole House, unless a majority of the House decides otherwise.

Mr Wildman: It was 66 to 0.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Rae: His hearing seems okay. It’s his voice that doesn’t work, in my opinion.

The Speaker: Mine, either.

It has been requested that it go to a standing committee. Therefore, I will have to ask all members in favour of its going to the standing committee to please rise until the heads are counted.

All those opposed to its going to a standing committee will please rise.

Ayes 22, nays 44.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House recessed at 1221.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330

ANNUAL REPORT,COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 14th annual report of the Commission on Election Finances. The members will find copies of these reports in their desks.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker: I also wish to inform the House that I have laid upon the table the 16th annual report of the Ombudsman of Ontario. These reports will be found in members mailboxes.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

Mr Allen: Visiting homemakers are fed up with endless delays and the meaningless promises of this government in dealing with their scandalously low wages. The inability of the government to come to grips with this issue is indeed staggering. When pushed against the wall last January, the government capitulated and announced it would cover the deficits of the visiting homemakers agencies.

The auditors appointed submitted their report four months ago and not a penny has been sent to the agencies to meet these deficits The latest promise was made on 23 May by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney), when he announced additional funding for visiting homemakers and other community-based agencies. Not a peep has been heard from the ministry in the intervening five weeks. There has not been a single consultation with homemaking agencies about how the $25 million earmarked for their programs is to be distributed or how the rates will be restructured.

The ministry continues to excuse its paralysis by saying it is studying more reports. The government has been studying this issue since 1986. After three years, it is no closer to providing a realistic and stable funding base for the agencies, which are, in the Premiers words, “the cornerstone of the government’s community services strategy.”

If the government put the money it spends on studies and consultants into the pockets of visiting homemakers, these would be a good deal better off. It has taken more than three years to bring even the promise of a $3.33-per-hour increase. Who knows how long it is going to take to reach homemakers? When is this government going to cut back on rhetoric and speed up on delivery?

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mr Jackson: On 26 April, the Minister of Education (Mr Ward) announced that within three years students would no longer be streamed in grade 9. In the interim, 10 destreaming pilot projects would be launched at a cost of $100,000 each to assist in the development of an appropriate curriculum and on an implementation strategy.

Two months have now passed and we have heard nothing from the ministry. No one knows the structure or location of these pilot projects, which will have to be constituted and evaluated in the space of one year. The only concrete example of a destreaming model has been proposed by the Toronto Board of Education on its own initiative. Their Castle Frank proposal outlines the need for additional staff and resources to train teachers and develop curriculum materials. Implementing destreaming is yet another example of a Liberal government-mandated program being foisted on to already financially burdened school boards.

Progressive Conservatives strongly argue for the protection and support of vocational schools and their current programs. When the select committee on education recommended destreaming of grade 9 students, it outlined a number of vital preconditions. Streaming decisions would have to be made at the local level. Parents, teachers, trustees and administrators all would have to be consulted. However, the ministry has failed to heed this advice.

Today, I will table over 7,000 signatures on a petition from friends and families of Western Secondary School in Essex county. They are convinced this government is proceeding without consultation on a political agenda, not an educational agenda, for Ontario’s vocational schools.

EDITORIAL CARTOON

Mr Pelissero: I rise today to register my objection to the editorial cartoon in this morning’s Toronto Sun, Donato’s depiction of two Chinese leaders opening their mail and remarking, “Hundreds of letters from world leaders condemning us for our treatment of the dissidents…there is however one of praise from a Premier David Peterson.” I find this not only offensive and in extremely poor taste, but a blatant example of a medium gone too far.

This editorial crosses way over the line that separates satirical but responsible editorial commentary from that which attempts to make light of a tragic situation such as the one in China. To even imply that there is a single person in this province or in this country, particularly the Premier, who could condone the suppressive actions taken against dissidents seeking democracy is a travesty that could not and should not be considered responsible journalism.

The sentiments expressed by the Sun’s editorial cartoon do a tremendous disservice to the memory of the students who were massacred in their quest for reform and democracy. We are fortunate in this country that we have media that are free to report information, provide valuable insights, and from time to time, help us to find satire and humour in events affecting our daily lives, but the editorial cartoon to which I am referring today represents a gross abuse of that freedom by exploiting an extremely serious and very tragic situation.

I am sure all members of this House share my deep concern and wish to send a message that this type of journalism is offensive and unacceptable.

CANCER TREATMENT

Miss Martel: The history of the development of the cancer treatment centre in Sudbury has often been fraught with difficulties, frustrations and delays. Most recently, the issue boiled up again with the controversy surrounding Dr. Ho and the obstinacy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to give him a temporary licence to practise in Sudbury. However last Friday, the centre and the community got a big boost with a major fund-raiser organized by the United Steelworkers, Local 6500.

Beginning at 5:30 am, executive members of the local and stewards of the various plants gathered at all the gates to collect donations from members for the cancer centre. They returned to the gates for the second shift and repeated efforts to collect funds from individual members to demonstrate support for the centre. That evening, a casino night was held at the Steel hall, and the proceeds raised were also donated to the same cause.

As of today, some $97,000 has been collected. This includes donations at the gates, a matching contribution by Inco, $2,000 collected by the Canadian Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers at its gates, a large contribution from moneys previously negotiated between Mine, Mill and Falconbridge, and proceeds from the casino night. The response was overwhelming and the event a tremendous success.

Many thanks must go to Thorne Ernst and Whinney for tallying the results, to Labatt’s for its generous donation, to the people at Laurentian Hospital for all their work at the casino, and a special thanks to all who gave so willingly to the cancer treatment centre.

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION LEVY

Mr Jackson: There seems to be some confusion over this government’s handling of the 17 May budget’s commercial concentration levy, or its parking lot tax. I dare say this confusion is a direct result of the Liberal government’s ability to tax, and not of its ability to govern. In my city, Burlington, staff now have no clue whether this applies to the city itself or not. If indeed it does, it could cost Burlington at least an additional $250,000.

This regressive tax is aimed at parking lots within the new greater Toronto area, an ill-defined and arbitrary boundary of the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) that has neither precedent nor justification. The Liberal government has said Burlington should be included for planning purposes, but now we know that means it is to be included so the province can double-tax us.

When the Treasurer’s budget was released, no one at all knew whether it applied to city-owned parking lots or not. A week after the budget, Burlington city officials were told it did not apply since the city’s parking lots are to be considered a utility, and thus exempt. However, this week it once again seems that the city of Burlington’s lots may not be exempt and a ruling is still pending.

When one takes into account this tax’s devastating effect on businesses, especially a large mall’s parking lots, it is plain for all to see that this government has declared war on business as well as property taxpayers. This government has deliberately avoided clearly defining this newest tax measure. It is a tactic designed to confuse and silence public criticism of the Treasurer’s bill, and hence, the tax itself.

CANADA DAY

Mr Dietsch: On 1 July, communities across this country will celebrate Canada Day. In Niagara-on-the-Lake, Paul Heron and his committee has published a special edition called the Canada Day Gazette which outlines the celebrations being organized by the Canada Day committee and the Friends of Fort George. Jim Alexander and Katherine Heron, co-chairmen, along with their committee have planned a number of events in Simcoe Park that include Dixieland music, a barbershop quartet, face painting, a student drama production, a magic show and a fruit pie contest and sale, as well as a listening tent where stories selected by the town’s chief librarian, Gerda Molson, will be read.

The listening tent is an important focal point of our celebrations as part of Frontier College’s “Read Canada” campaign. I will have the distinct pleasure of reading a number of Canadian stories to children aged four to eight. It is important to note that the Ministry of Skills Development has supported and encouraged this project as well as initiated its own projects to meet today’s literacy challenges.

Furthermore, local politicians will assist us at the celebrity pop stand with all the profits going to the celebration. The day will conclude at Fort George at 8 pm with everyone’s favourite, the fireworks display. In Niagara-on the-Lake, proud citizens have banded together to celebrate Canada Day in their own unique way, and I believe these people should be commended for it is they who make this country great.

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

Mr Hampton: Earlier today, a large group of individuals held a press conference here at Queen’s Park. They wanted to comment upon one piece of the government’s legislative agenda, Bill 124, the legislation that is supposed to guarantee access and deal with custody and access disputes.

They had a number of things to say about the legislation. They said, first of all, that there are no figures and no studies indicating the need for the legislation. Second, they said that the legislation ignores the best interests of children. Third, it is bound to lead to greater conflict, not lessen the conflict between parents about their children. It distorts the legal process.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Hon Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to correct the record for Hansard. I have had an opportunity to review my answer to the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton) yesterday on the question of northern health services.

I would like to clarify that on the northern health manpower committee, which is a significant initiative of my ministry and this government, we made a commitment to consult widely with a number of organizations. I signed letters to those organizations asking them to submit recommendations. The organizations included district health councils and others in the north.

We have very recently received their recommendations. I hope to announce the names of committee members within the next few weeks when I am in northern Ontario and I will be communicating with the prospective members to confirm --

The Speaker: Thank you. That sounds like a point of personal explanation and it should not go into the debate at all.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think what the minister is really doing is changing her answer from yesterday to a question that I posed in the House. If the minister is allowed to do that, I should be allowed a supplementary.

The Speaker: I certainly cannot allow you a supplementary now because we are not in question period. However, I am sure the member could ask a question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I do not know whether we should be debating this at this time. I think I would just say that all ministers should in the future consider very carefully whether it should be a request to the Speaker to have an opportunity to respond further, but that can only happen if the member takes the question to answer at a later time.

Hon Mr Phillips: Mr Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to make a statement regarding Canada Day.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

CANADA DAY / FETE DU CANADA

Hon Mr Phillips: It is with great honour that I rise on behalf of the government to acknowledge a day of importance to all Canadians. I refer of course to Canada Day. This 1 July we will celebrate the 122nd anniversary of the nationhood of Canada.

One of the things we very much celebrate is the rich diversity of our nation. We have welcomed people from all over the world to realize their dreams here, many of them, frankly, to escape the nightmare of history in their home countries. Canada is a multicultural and a multiracial nation. This alone is reason for us to celebrate.

Many Canadians have celebrated this reality, often by putting their thoughts into words. In fact, as I looked over the thoughts of various Canadians, I was struck by a thought of a previous Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker. He said some words that I thought were rather appropriate. He said, “I liken Canada to a garden...a garden into which have been transplanted the hardiest and the brightest flowers from many lands, each retaining in its new environment the best qualities for which it was loved and prized in its native land.” I might add that this garden, in my opinion, is now in full bloom.

While this is an anniversary and a time to celebrate, it is also a time for reflection on what it means to all of us to be Canadian. Being a Canadian I hope means to have a sense of security and a sense of optimism. It means knowing our children will have a future that will allow them to achieve their dreams through hard work and commitment.

Being Canadian also means, importantly, having choices we must never forget. It means being able to choose how we choose to worship, how we want to raise our children and how we want to be governed. Many of us take these freedoms for granted and take the rights we enjoy for granted, but there is no room for complacency in these areas. Vigilance, compassion, tolerance and generosity must be our watchwords. These are values I am sure all Ontarians share and desire. It is that spirit we celebrate as Canadians and Ontarians this and every Canada Day.

I might say that when this holiday is over, we must carry that spirit with us throughout the year. We still have much work to do in building this country and this province. We must not rest by looking back or being satisfied with what we have done. We must, as we approach this Canada Day, look forward to much more to do.

Mr B. Rae: I am delighted to say a few words on the subject of our national day. We look forward very much to its celebration this weekend, as people from many walks of life do, on Saturday and of course on their day of rest for most people on Sunday when they will have a chance to be with their families, as well as on Monday when we will all be celebrating this day.

I think the remarks of the minister are entirely accurate and to be commended. We are a multicultural, multiracial society. I do not know if the minister was listening, but there was quite a wonderful commentary on the radio this morning by a teacher who was contrasting the Winnipeg of her childhood with the Winnipeg of today and talking about the dramatic contrasts in our schools. As I was going by my own children’s school, I was reflecting on the extent to which all our schools in much of Ontario have become like little United Nations in which we really are beginning to experience the vibrancy, as well of course as some of the problems, of being a multicultural, multiracial society.

I am sure all of us will take the message of the minister back to our constituencies or perhaps, dare I say, to our cottages as we have some time this weekend