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

May 22, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L018 - Thu 22 May 1986 / Jeu 22 mai 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FLOOD INSURANCE

TRADE UNIT

FLOOD INSURANCE

TRADE UNIT

AFTERNOON SITTING

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RIVER BANK EROSION

EXTRA BILLING

KITCHENER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

PARALEGALS

SENTENCING OF POLLUTERS

FREE TRADE

PHYSIOTHERAPY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EXTRA BILLING

FOREST FIRES

DISASTER RELIEF

RESIGNATION OF PREMIER BENNETT

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

EXTRA BILLING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

UNEMPLOYMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SENTENCING OF POLLUTERS

EXTRA BILLING

PHYSIOTHERAPY

TOBACCO IMPORTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FREE TRADE

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

INSURANCE RATES

WASTE DISPOSAL

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

UNEMPLOYMENT

TENDERING PRACTICES

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY

GASOLINE PRICES

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REDISTRIBUTION

NATUROPATHY

UNEMPLOYMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PARALEGAL AGENTS ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FLOOD INSURANCE

Mr. Haggerty moved resolution 31:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing the serious nature of high levels of water along Ontario's shoreline, resulting in severe loss or damage to properties, a provincial flood insurance program should be established to ensure that flood damage insurance is available to property owners in identified flood plains and to encourage more effective flood plain management.

The goals of the program would enable property owners in areas susceptible to flooding to purchase flood insurance which might otherwise not be available, and the development of regionally based programs or corrective and preventive measures for reducing flooding and flood damage in hazardous areas as a prerequisite for eligibility in the flood insurance program could result. Such an insurance program is designed to reduce the escalating costs of property damage caused by floods and is generally unavailable from the private sector insurance companies.

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

Mr. Haggerty: Moving ballot item 3, that a provincial flood insurance program be established in Ontario, provides me with the opportunity to debate for the second time the issue of high levels of water. In 1973, I introduced a motion in the Legislature concerning high levels of water in the Great Lakes basin which was considered by all members of the Legislature as an urgent public concern. Many shoreline property owners and municipalities were encountering severe damage to valuable property.

Following that debate, the government of the day introduced legislation named the Shoreline Protection Act to provide low interest rates to construct shoreline erosion-protection programs. Given the urgency and crisis of more shoreline property damage along Ontario's 4,720 miles of inland shoreline, many property owners are calling for a reduction in the discharge of water from existing water diversions into Lake Superior and the effect it has on lowering water levels, particularly in the Lake Erie basin. This requires drastic action on behalf of the International Joint Commission, which has the authority to regulate the outflow of water at Lake Superior and Lake Ontario.

Some 12 months ago, I again raised the question in the Legislature with the then Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), concerning the high levels of lake water, particularly in Lake Erie, at a record level of 32 inches above normal. I advised him of the continuing serious problems many property owners were encountering, such as shoreline erosion.

I suggested the minister follow the recommendations in the 1952 report of the select committee on high water levels in the Great Lakes system. One recommendation put forward was that a further study be initiated to deal with the adverse effect of hydro-generation structures when completed on diversion of the St. Lawrence River Robert Saunders generation plant. Second, studies were recommended on the proposed construction of control weirs on the Niagara River by Ontario Hydro and the Power Authority of the State of New York as well as on the effect of deepening the St. Lawrence Seaway system and reviewing the diversion of water from the James Bay watershed north to south into Lake Superior.

I want to commend my colleague the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) and Minister of Natural Resources on his initiative in appointing the shoreline management review committee to investigate the long-term approach to shoreline management and in extending the Great Lakes shoreline assistance program to 1987. This new program includes low-interest loans to private land owners for protective works along the Great Lakes in Ontario. These existing programs are of a temporary nature. Long-term solutions are necessary to reduce any further damage to property.

During the severe storm on Lake Erie of December 2, 1985, high gale winds of hurricane force, which continued for two consecutive days, pounded the north shore of Lake Erie and the eastern basin, causing estimated property damage reaching $25 million. Many homes were destroyed, and municipal roads and drains were damaged.

I covered that storm following the Lake Shore Road from Port Colborne east to Fort Erie and the Niagara River. The wave action reached 12 feet high, ripping into cottages and permanent homes, destroying everything in its path, including the retaining walls along the Niagara River at the Peace Bridge. I found many roads impassable. Three or four days later, while returning from the Legislative Assembly, I reviewed the damage in Wainfleet township too.

Many property owners lost everything, and in some cases, losses were not covered by insurance because of the wording in the contracts regarding flooding risks. It is interesting to note that the December 2 storm did not meet the criteria of the province's disaster program.

Last week I attended a conference in Albany, New York -- the centre for Great Lakes -- with state and provincial legislative caucuses on Great Lakes diversions and lake levels. The conference, dealing with the Great Lakes charter, proved to be a most useful tool in providing information and cataloguing data. For example, data recorded on Lake Erie annual water levels since 1900 to the present day show that where heavy precipitation occurs in any given year, there is a noticeable increase in water levels, particularly following the low levels of Lake Erie in the early 1960s. Surging precipitation and increased water levels created a crisis in 1985-86.

I was also interested in the documentation that in November 1983, the International Joint Commission released its last report, Limited Regulation of Lake Erie. That report thoroughly investigates the feasibility of three different sizes of control structure for limited regulation of water levels.

Although the regulation would have a positive effect on erosion problems and recreational interests, it would also result in the following negative effects: increased water levels in Lake Ontario, shipping losses, hydroelectric power production losses, recreational boating losses and potential losses to the wetlands and fisheries. Ultimately, the International Joint Commission concluded that the economic losses of limited regulation of Lake Erie outweighed the benefits.

10:10 a.m.

The fact is that 60 per cent of Ontario's hydroelectric generating capacity comes from the Great Lakes. A reduction in flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second, which would alter the lake levels by six inches, would cost Ontario an estimated $20 million annually in lost hydraulic power. Lowering lake levels by one inch can result in the loss of more than one million tons of cargo capacity per year.

Based on the above facts, high levels of water on the Great Lakes will be present for a number of years, increasing the risk of damage to property owners who could be classified as living in a hazardous area and increasing the costs of flood damage in both human and economic terms.

The resolution before the Legislature this morning follows the principle of the declaration of the National Flood Insurance Act, 1968, in the United States. Its purpose was largely to authorize a flood insurance program initiated by the federal government as well as to guide development away from locations threatened by flood hazards. In 1973, the Flood Disaster Protection Act was declared. It increased the limits of coverage authorized under the national flood insurance program and required participation of the states and local communities in the program.

Until water levels in the Great Lakes basin return to normal, experts and studies initiated by the International Joint Commission show that a crisis remains, a critical element seriously threatening damage to additional shoreline property, loss of homes and cottages. It is cancerous. It can occur at any moment because of a shift in wind direction, increasing velocity and magnifying the problem on a large body of water.

The Ministry of Natural Resources mandate has identified flood plain areas in many communities of Ontario through flood plain mapping. Its engineering studies involving hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of each study area have already produced flood insurance rate mapping. Similar procedures can apply to shoreline property.

One of the major concerns of many property owners is that when the Ministry of Natural Resources, through its agency, the conservation authority, designates flood plain hazard zones, they have problems in obtaining insurance protection on their homes and contents. Obtaining risk insurance in a hazardous zone is almost impossible.

I am sure all members of this Legislature agree with the policy of the Ministry of Natural Resources in flood plain mapping, consulting and advising citizens of the flood plain regulations under the Planning Act. Almost every municipality in Ontario that has been constructed on a waterway, lake or river has flood plain risks.

The introduction of flood insurance in the United States was a solution to the many problems encountered by property owners who had floods year after year. The construction of levees, dikes, breakwalls and shoreline protection to reduce flooding risks in most troubled areas was costly and could not stand up to the forces of mother nature.

The resolution before the House this morning is to encourage private insurance companies to become involved in flood insurance. For example, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency developed the write-your-own program. Under this program, companies agree to sell and service flood insurance under their own names, with government assurance that they will not lose money. At present, participating companies represent 27 per cent of all flood insurance coverage in the United States.

The resolution this morning provides the government with the opportunity to review the effects of the establishment of a provincial flood insurance program. The reasons for such a program would be the need to ensure that flood damage insurance is available to property owners in identified flood plains and to encourage most effective flood plain management.

Accordingly, the goals of the program would be twofold. First, such a provincially supported program would enable property owners in areas susceptible to flooding to purchase flood insurance that otherwise might not be available. Second, such a program could foster more effective flood plain management. The latter suggests a development of regionally based programs of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flooding and flood damage as a prerequisite for eligibility in the flood insurance program.

I moved from the town of Port Colborne to the rural area of Sherkston when I purchased a small farm some 45 years ago. I am giving away my age this morning. One of the problems I encountered in the transition to the country was that I could not obtain risk insurance on farm property. I had difficulties. I could not get any of the larger insurance companies to provide insurance. Location was one of the reasons given to me at the time. I was not within a five-mile radius of a fire hall and I did not have water lines in front of my property. There was every excuse one could find.

I shopped around and, lo and behold, I found a farm mutual insurance company and was able to obtain risk insurance on my property. I even had wind insurance at that time. This is another area the government should look at so we could say to the property owners along the lakeshore, "We will provide you with the opportunity to form a mutual insurance agency or corporation." It has worked out very well. It was called Bertie and Willoughby at that time, but now it is called Bertie and Clinton and covers much of the Niagara region.

It includes not only farm land and farm property but also urban areas in the Niagara region and has provided a good protective measure for risk insurance.

It is a simple way. It does not cost the government anything in this area except for a charter for persons along the shoreline or for flood plain mapping in Ontario to obtain insurance. This is another method where we could provide assistance. The intent of this resolution is to provide these people, these property owners along the lakeshore, with some measure of insurance in case of the loss of a building.

It is great to say that by putting forward minimal efforts, government can reduce the lake levels on Lake Erie and other lakes. I know this much: I am not convinced by the experts that they are not storing water in Lake Erie for generation plants on the New York state side and for Ontario Hydro on the Canadian side. I know the problem if one opens some of the valves and control gates from Lake Superior down to Lake Ontario and into the St. Lawrence River. It would cause problems in the province of Quebec, because we would be loading water down in that area. Apparently, we are going to have to live with the risk.

In Lake Erie in particular, we have shifting winds and shifting water from the western basin to the eastern basin, which causes severe shoreline problems and damage to property.

The government must move in this area. All the indications from the data and reports that have come from experts and through computer models are that we are going to have high levels of water on Lake Erie for the next 10 years because of the extraneous flow that is coming in from the watershed from northern Ontario and the diversions from the James Bay watershed to Lake Superior. It is going to cause us problems.

10:20 a.m.

Another thing I am concerned about is that some immediate steps should be taken to reduce the level of water on Lake Erie. Currently, Ontario Hydro is not using its share of the water from the water rights agreed by the state of New York and Ontario. They are not using their capacity. I understand that Ontario Hydro through the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Energy has suggested that another hydro generating plant be constructed on the Canadian side by Ontario Hydro to produce 500 to 600 megawatts.

I understand the Power Authority of the State of New York this year will be starting construction on additional generating capacity on the American side. That means they will be taking more water from the Niagara River, well above their share.

Studies in the past have indicated that the average flow of water going over the Niagara Falls is 200,000 cubic feet per second. In the past couple of years it has been as high as 285,000 cubic feet per second, even with the two power generating stations taking their share. There is an ample supply of water that should be diverted through the Welland Canal. We could increase the present flow of 9,700 cubic feet per second. I have a strong feeling that we could make better use of the Welland Canal to help reduce the water level on Lake Erie.

This would provide additional generation capacity at the Niagara Falls plant. It will not take seven or eight years to bring on stream. It could probably be constructed in a year. All that is required are tubes from the escarpment down into the old Welland Canal going through St. Catharines. We might be able to increase the flow there to 12,000 cubic feet per second. That means reducing the water levels on Lake Erie quite a bit.

There are initiatives that could be taken by this government and by the federal government, which has shirked its responsibility in this area. It is an international body of water. On the American side at least, the federal government has stepped in and provided flood insurance, giving some relief and some security to the people living along the lakeshore.

We live in a society full of risk. I suggest my resolution this morning could reduce that level of risk. At least the people would be able to rebuild new homes set back from the lakeshore or away from flood plains.

I thank the members. I am sure they will support the resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Erie wish to reserve the last minute and 21 seconds for a reply?

Mr. Haggerty: Yes.

Mr. Harris: While the member for Erie is sure all members of the House will support this resolution -- and I will support it -- I am disappointed in it. It is one step that may provide assistance to the residents along Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie who are experiencing problems now and will experience them in the future, as the member for Erie has stated. I do not think there is any question about that.

Where I differ with the member is on the question of how long into the future this problem must go on. I also differ with him in thinking that of all the things that could be done, this one he has chosen to bring to the fore is probably the one that will be the most difficult to implement and the one that will cost the most money.

I will talk briefly about the resolution as it stands and then I will go on to some other things that I think should be in the resolution or might be highlighted in place of this resolution.

It is true that flood insurance is not available now in a lot of areas of the province. Those are areas where the residents do not want to purchase insurance because there is no risk of floods. Those people do not want into the insurance pool; the guys on the high ground do not need it. The only people who are interested in buying flood insurance or who want to be insured are those who very likely are going to have to draw on their claims.

As the coalition members will know, and anybody who has gone down to take a look at the situation will tell members, the real reason insurance companies are not into this, particularly in the areas we are talking about along Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair, is the 100 per cent certainty that the damage and flooding are going to be there. If there is a 100 per cent risk that there is going to be a claim, the premium will be 100 per cent plus the administration fee and what not. In effect, a guy is going to be asked to prepay something to an insurance plan before the damage even occurs, with the pretty good certainty that it is going to occur.

If this resolution is suggesting the government should provide the insurance, it should say so. As I read the resolution, it is saying the government should set up an insurance plan or facilitate the setting up of a plan for which individuals would have to pay the premium. That premium will probably be at a rate of at least 100 per cent of what the damage is going to be. If the premium is lower than that, it is because the insurers do not expect flood damage, and the people who do not expect it will not buy insurance so their money will not be in the pool.

The whole thing sounds like an option we are not going to oppose looking at, but unless substantial tax dollars are thrown in, I do not see any home owners along the Lake Erie shoreline being able to afford the insurance. What is disappointing is that significant other reassurances could be provided by the government of Ontario to these residents in the short term.

We are talking about almost an ongoing daily disaster for many of these residents, and a more immediate response and recognition of that is in order. Certainly there is a need for increased funding assistance to municipalities for shoreline protection remedial work; in fact, there is not only a need but also an obligation on the part of this government to go into that field.

The coalition groups there are calling for an increased limit; it is $20,000 now. I believe they are saying that it is unreasonable and should be up to $40,000, that the interest rate of eight per cent is no longer reasonable and should be lower, that damage costs or compensation for land value could be considered through a tax credit process similar to the benefits achieved on the US side of the lake and that the conservation authorities in those areas should be given increased funds.

They are also saying there should be far more recognition of the seriousness of the problem by this government and the Ministry of Natural Resources as well as by the federal government. The government of Ontario and the ministry have to take the lead; that is how things get done with the federal government. I do not see this government taking the lead, however.

10:30 a.m.

Much study has been done. The member for Erie mentioned that he did not believe some of the remedial measures to get water out of Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair would be feasible, and in the next breath he talked about some of the measures that would get more water through the Welland Canal. The reality is that this government, the federal government and all levels of government on the US side have to recognize and accept the facts that the coalition members have put forward.

This is not a natural phenomenon of more rain, that all of a sudden more rain is accumulating there. In fact, there are man-made structures that allow more water into Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie and man-made structures that restrict the flow out, not to get into the whole area of the drainage, parking lots, clearing land, taking away the trees and all the things that municipal, provincial and federal governments have done and assisted with. They are all designed to get water off the land and into this basin faster.

We have to recognize that, were all the trees there, this "natural phenomenon" would not be occurring. Man has interfered. As in any other government, when one designs a system of government, a tax system or the rules by which one is going to operate, sometimes the best one can hope for is that those rules benefit the most people. One sets up a system wherein one hopes 100 per cent of the people can achieve in the system, but one knows that will not happen.

If five per cent or 10 per cent cannot achieve in that system, the government has an obligation to provide the support programs for the 10 per cent that cannot achieve, possibly because of the rules of the game that have been set up to benefit the majority.

We have the same situation here. We have shipping interests, we have Hydro interests and we have all these structures that are impeding water going out. We have all the things that have been done to accelerate water going in. We have to accept some responsibility for that.

The member for Erie mentioned the downside effects of getting more water out, not by putting more out than should go but just by correcting the impediments that have been put in there. Plan 25-N at the Niagara Gorge should be looked at. It does not call for more water to go out than would have occurred if all these man-made structures were not there.

We talk about problems in Quebec; the engineering estimates I had were that they were adding half an inch of water. There was half an inch of water at Montreal, where it is now two feet lower than it used to be on the banks. I disagree with the member for Erie that that should be an impediment.

I call on this government now to get into some of those measures, both long-term and short-term. I am disappointed that this resolution addresses only one very narrow aspect that is difficult to implement.

Mr. Swart: I want to speak on this resolution that we have before us today, because I live in the area and I am very conscious of the financial and emotional problems many people have suffered as a result of the shoreline damage in that area.

As well, in my area I have many constituents who own cottages along the lakeshore and have suffered that damage. I have heard many figures given about the amount of damage, from $10 million along the north shore of Lake Erie to a total of $1 billion all the way around. Whatever it is, it is very substantial. Wainfleet estimates it will lose approximately $75,000 in taxes because of the real property losses. We know much of the point at Long Point has been eroded. It is not only the loss to recreation; there are also many rare birds, animals and plants there that will disappear, perhaps from Ontario or even North America, if another storm or two of that nature takes place.

I will be supporting the resolution, but I am supporting it only half-heartedly. I find it a very convoluted resolution. Its purpose is to provide insurance. Then by some sort of back-door method, the member wants to encourage more effective flood plain management. He says that "regionally based programs or corrective and preventive measures for reducing flooding and flood damage in hazardous areas" will be "a requisite for eligibility in the flood insurance program." I do not know what is going to happen to those people who cannot afford to take the remedial measures. They are just going to suffer the same consequences in another flood. It does not resolve the problem appropriately.

When he talks about the public domain providing insurance, it is another indication that the member wants the public sector to bail out the private insurance companies. It is the same all the time; if there is any real risk, the private insurance companies do not want it. "Let the government look after that." They want to insure only the good risks or the small risks.

The real reason I am lukewarm is that this deals with only a very small part of the problem. It does nothing to reimburse all those people who suffered massive losses in that storm, and some of them previously. It does not deal with assistance in building breakwalls or the other measures to prevent their property from being damaged in the future. Most of all, it does not deal with lowering the level of Lake Erie, which is the real preventive measure that should be taken.

In fact, one would almost think this resolution was introduced by a member on the government side to shield his government from dealing with the real and admittedly costly problems and solutions. Why would the member not have proposed, in his resolution, some plan for the north shore of Lake Erie so that subsidies could be provided, as they are under the Drainage Act, for protection all along that shore?

Why did he not propose to do something about lake levels which, as I have already said, are the real problem? The member must know something about those lake levels. They stayed at about the 569- or 570-foot level down in our area for many decades; in fact, from the time they were first recorded in 1912. Right through until about 1970, they stayed at the 569- or 570-foot level, and then they started moving up. They moved up to 571 feet and have not been lower than that since 1969. Then they moved up to 572 feet in 1973-74, and at present they are up to the 573-foot level.

After having been up there for 15 to 17 years, there is a real likelihood they will never go back to the original levels which existed from 1913 to approximately 1970.

The member for Nipissing gave some reasons. There has been the diversion of the Ogoki and Kenogami rivers from James Bay to Lake Superior. It is perhaps not a major factor, but it has added water to the Great Lakes basin. There has been more runoff because of the depletion of our forests and probably more cultivated land than there has been ever before. Even here in southern Ontario, there has been the loss of the wetlands, and this has all been aggravated by the warmer weather we have had recently.

10:40 a.m.

Another factor is that we have control of the Lake Superior level. They can let it out when it gets too flooded. When Lake Superior gets too high, they let it out into Lake Huron. We have had the dredging of the St. Clair River and the Detroit River. At the time it was done, that lowered the level of Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair by about a foot. All this water runs down into Lake Erie, and its outlet has never been changed. If we are going to have the additional input of all of this water and have control on Lake Superior, then control is needed to improve the outlet of Lake Erie down the Niagara River.

I was very surprised to hear the member for Erie defending the International Joint Commission for not taking any action there because the benefits did not warrant the cost. There is a new situation now that did not exist before with these ongoing higher levels, and a new study should be made. We know the 25-N study said the benefits would not warrant the cost, but that is not the situation that exists today.

It is no fault of the people there that this damage is being done and that there is the probability of a great deal more damage being done to their property. These are the actions of somebody else, and perhaps the actions of God. Men have intervened in the flow of the Great Lakes, and they should intervene in the Fort Erie area to deepen the Niagara River so water can get away and we can control it.

The member talked about the loss of hydro generating power. I suggest that when the generating stations were built, the level of Lake Erie was substantially lower than it is now. In fact, the overall generating power could be increased by holding Lake Erie at a steady level rather than having it go up and down as it does at present.

Why did the member for Erie not ask at least for the review and reconsideration of 25-N, the plan for the control works at Fort Erie, and for a new cost-benefit study? Why did he not recommend the other measures that have been asked for by the group? The Chicago diversion can be increased; the Black Rock lock can be opened and increased; even the Welland Canal can handle more water.

This is a weak proposal to deal with a major problem. The constituents of the member for Erie will not be very proud of him for this resolution.

Mr. Callahan: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate on the issue raised by my colleague. One of the extreme difficulties that comes out of all this is that while it is very pleasant to live next to a body of water, perhaps to live as close as possible to that body of water, doing that necessarily incurs certain risks. They are not new risks; they have been with us for quite some time.

I have a statement here from the federal agency report, which was a newsletter item of the Association of State Flood Plan Managers. It indicates that evidence collected by the weather service and other federal agencies shows that flood damage has been increasing in constant dollar value since 1900. It appears this problem has been around, as I have said, for a considerable period of time.

It becomes quite obvious that the answer is not simply compensation. We are going to have problems with the ever-increasing amount of water in our Great Lakes as long as the water is there and as long as we continue to have rain and snow; and I am sure no one would ever vote against having rain and snow, because they provide a very necessary commodity to keep us alive.

For that reason, to look at it simply from the standpoint of an insurance issue is to bury our heads. We can compensate people only so many times. We can compensate them for loss of property, but we cannot compensate them for personal injury. That, as well as the loss of property, is a very considerable risk to them. Addressing for a moment the intent of my colleague's resolution that this matter can be resolved, at least in the short term, by way of an insurance scheme, one has to look at what the purpose and function of insurance is.

Quite obviously, insurance is a gamble between the insurance company and the policyholder that something will not happen. The rates are set on the basis of how predictable or how imminent the thing is. It is like rolling the dice; there are so many permutations and combinations that the dice will come up for or against one.

Recognizing that the premium is based on the likelihood of something happening and recognizing that what we are told today is that damage from high water is probably going to be with us for ever, one has to look at how one establishes some form of monetary protection. Monetary protection, I suggest, would have to be contained within a policy that would be spread over the entire populace.

One cannot possibly create a policy of insurance and simply sell it to the people who have the particular risk. The premiums would be so exorbitant it would hardly be worth their while. They might decide to take the chance that this year they will not suffer significant damage or, in the alternative, that government will bail them out.

They would probably be right on either of those scores, because when a difficult issue such as this arises it calls for urgent action. Very often urgent action is not the best action. It becomes a knee-jerk reaction. Particularly with government, if we react in a knee-jerk way, we are going to wind up with a situation where we are going to make the situation worse as opposed to better.

I suggest the implementation of a review committee by the Minister of Natural Resources in February 1986 is the approach to take on a long-term basis. Quite obviously, we do not want to have to resort to any knee-jerk reaction. Being legislators and being here to represent people, we are appalled by natural disaster and at seeing these people suffer damage. However, we do not serve their long-term needs if we simply address it each time it happens, then hope it goes away and address it again the next time it comes.

Over the years, there have been attempts through the planning process to try to establish flood plain locations within which one could not build a structure. That went some way towards not only taking property out of the danger zone but also protecting life and limb from being endangered by this type of natural phenomenon. However, there are other steps that have to be taken. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot live right beside the body of water for its natural beauty and not take some of the risks. That is where government has to get involved.

We have to tell people they cannot live that close to the water because there is a danger. If people choose to do so, it would have to be on the basis that there would not be any compensation; they would be voluntarily assuming that risk.

To simply try to establish an insurance program to pay after the fact is untenable. It would not work. The premiums would be enormously high. This is assuming one does it through the private sector. If one does it through the public sector, the logical extension is that for any other risk people in the community cannot find coverage for without paying an exorbitant premium, they could come to the government and say to us: "You have done it for them. We would like you to do it for us." We do not want to create that type of demand. There are enough demands on government without that.

10:50 a.m.

In the long term, I endorse what the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has done. He has set up a committee to examine, I hope once and for all, the causes and effects and the way in which we will deal with it on a long-range basis. That will set in place the mechanisms to deal with it in the future.

For the present, and perhaps to overcome that hiatus period when these remedies are not going to be put in place, there probably has to be some form of economic relief for the people in that situation today. They have been placed in that position by the inactivity of the previous government in not adopting some long-range plans in the past. As the government, we have a responsibility to address that need. I hope we will do that now and for ever and that it will not be a further situation which results in a knee-jerk reaction. Such a reaction is neither sensitive nor sane in terms of the fiscal responsibility of this province.

Another approach that might be looked at, although it seems very difficult in the light of the high premiums that are arising in the insurance industry, is to have a policy that covers this loss whether or not one is a high risk. That is the principle of insurance; the loss is spread over the largest number of people.

There are some people in towns and municipalities who may find it beneficial to have some form of coverage for sewer bursts or backups in their basements. The two elements might be combined to create a simple inclusion in all policies for an additional amount. In that way, everyone would pay in a bit and a program such as that could be put together. To say the people who are going to be participants are the ones who live in the high-risk areas would make the premium out of sight under a private program.

In closing, although I appreciate what my colleague is suggesting, I do not see that as the panacea or the solution to this problem. I suggest the solution rests with attacking this on a full-scale basis by way of a task force coming up with some very positive recommendations and putting them into place. If putting them into place requires the expenditure of money to eliminate places that have been built in high-risk areas to avoid the danger to life and limb in the future, so be it. It has to be at least a definite, long-term plan.

Short-term, Band-Aid solutions will not solve the problem, and maybe not myself, but other members in the future will have almost a legacy of coming here and speaking on this particularly sensitive and emergency issue. The people of Ontario deserve more than that.

Mr. Sheppard: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few comments on the resolution as brought forth by the member for Erie. Generally, I agree with the idea of a provincial flood insurance program and that such a program should be established to ensure the availability of flood damage insurance to property owners in identified flood plains.

In my riding of Northumberland, municipalities such as Brighton, Port Hope, Cobourg and Colborne are affected by the high water levels along the Lake Ontario shoreline. There are roughly 70 miles of lakeshore in my riding. I believe there is some assistance from the Ministry of Natural Resources and the federal government. Some of the property owners in my riding have taken advantage of some grants to build retaining walls or crib walls along their properties abutting Lake Ontario.

For example, one constituent in Brighton wrote to me complaining that she continually has to dump loads of sand because part of her backyard is washed away every spring. Her primary reason for writing was to request information about the possibility of financial assistance, as every year it costs her more than she can afford.

The proposed type of insurance program, which thus far is unavailable through private sector insurance companies, would help to reduce the escalating cost of property damage caused by flood and erosion. It is my understanding, however, that the Insurance Bureau of Canada would be willing to look into the possibility of an agreement among various insurance groups to ensure coverage in case of flooding.

This resolution is surely one action we must consider to ensure property owners are compensated for flood damage, but I sincerely hope this is only an interim measure until we find a more permanent solution to the problem of flooding. Corrective and preventive measures must be discovered to reduce flooding and flood damage.

In my riding of Northumberland, some of my constituents have built retaining walls or crib walls that so far have reduced the amount of flooding and erosion. However, these measures require funding and planning, which is why I particularly agree with this resolution as a temporary measure to the pressing problem of increased flooding.

I do not know whether the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) realizes that assistance is available through the Ministry of Natural Resources and the federal government. I hope the Ministry of Natural Resources will contact the federal government to see whether more money is available so we can help all the people in the great riding of Northumberland, not just those living along the shores of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.

I call on the Minister of Natural Resources to put out a real arm to get all the money he can get because we need that money to help all the people along Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.

Mr. Hayes: Many of the shoreline residents probably wish they had insurance prior to the flooding last fall and the years before. I know the majority of the shoreline residents would support a resolution that would give them the opportunity to purchase insurance. However, the problem I have with this is that it seems to be a bit of window dressing when we talk about the prerequisite that is required to purchase the insurance. With this prerequisite, I do not know whether anyone in this province who lives along the shoreline would be able to take advantage of this insurance.

The people who live along the shoreline are getting into a situation where they are getting nothing but breakwalls, barriers and things such as that. The people who live on the shorelines want to enjoy the beaches that were there when they moved there.

What is needed is a government that not only listens but also truly acts. What is needed is someone with the political will to take a serious look at controlling the Great Lakes level. I find it rather interesting that the member for Erie indicated at the beginning that when he was in opposition, he was pressuring the previous government to do something about controlling the Great Lakes. Now that seems to have turned around. That member is in the party that can do something at this time.

The Minister of Natural Resources has accused me of always being critical, but I must say --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, no.

Mr. Mancini: Not critical; just wrong.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I flew the member around and welcomed him with open arms.

11 a.m.

Mr. Hayes: Not necessarily.

I have made many suggestions to the Minister of Natural Resources. I brought people down who gave him ideas and asked him to look at solutions to reduce the flooding of the Great Lakes. They have done things in shoreline protection, such as loans and setting up of the committee and areas such as those. I welcome all that, but I feel the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), or whoever it takes, should take a serious look at reducing the lake levels if they really want to --

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

Mr. Hayes: I wish I had more time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Erie has 81 seconds.

Mr. Haggerty: I was interested in some of the comments made by the member for Nipissing. He said flood plain insurance would cost the government money. There were three proposals in my opening statement. It actually says the onus is on the property owners along the lakeshore because they know it is a hazardous area. In many places it has been zoned through planning.

He talked about the cost and he said the government should spend more money on other preventive measures such as more shoreline protection. That costs the province money too, because it gives low interest rates that someone has to pick up.

The previous government had been in power for 42 years. We should go back to legislation reversing the previous government's decision of 1951 concerning the high-water marks, or riparian rights as they were known at that time. They removed that from vegetation growth to the water's edge. If they had maintained that

interpretation at that time, they would have had control on where to build homes or dwellings along the shoreline.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who always takes a dim view of almost everything, should read what I have said.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired. That completes the allotted time for ballot item 3. The next item is ballot item 4.

TRADE UNIT

Mr. Andrewes moved resolution 34:

That in the opinion of this House the government, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, should establish a trade unit within the marketing branch of the ministry.

The purpose of this unit would be to monitor and participate in international trade discussions under GATT and the current discussions on trade enhancement with the United States; to determine opportunities and/or potential damage from trade enhancement discussions; to compile a bank of information on internationally traded food commodities, including the country of origin, production conditions and costs of production and the form and amount of any government assistance.

These initiatives would provide Ontario producers, processors and exporters with a database to assist in planning production, researching markets and arguing cases before the tariff board and other bodies governing international trade matters.

Mr. Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes, and if he wishes to reserve any of that time for a windup, that is in order.

Mr. Andrewes: I propose this resolution not only from my experience as a member of this Legislature but also from my experience prior to coming into the Legislature, both as an agricultural producer and as a representative of agricultural producers and producer groups, particularly those involved in the marketing of agricultural commodities.

I am sure this is going to be of some interest to the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). I learned during that period that no single issue challenges or frightens the agricultural community more than the whole question of trade, particularly international trade.

The question of international trade provides a great number of opportunities for expanded production in agriculture. To those who are involved in production, it provides significant challenges to look at markets abroad, to plan their crop cycles and crop production for those markets, to put in place facilities that will make them competitive in transportation and secondary processing. Unfortunately, the more successful you are and the more vibrant your own economy becomes, the more vulnerable you become to trade from other nations that affects your own home markets.

What is fair in international trade today must be put in terms of what is realistic and what is profitable. Many Ontario products today are sold abroad in the raw state, in the state in which they come from the primary producer. Many are sold as processed or secondary processed products. Commodities that are produced on Ontario farms, such as soybeans, enter international trade in the raw state and compete that way on international markets, while other products, products of the horticultural industry and products of the livestock industry, may go through some secondary processing before they move to these international markets. They can compete well if the competition is fair.

We hear this terminology bandied around on many occasions. We hear it bandied around in discussions on international trade and trade enhancement. We hear it bandied around in discussions on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The whole terminology of "fair" means that Ontario producers of agricultural commodities would have access to markets abroad and would have realistic and reasonable competition at home without significant government intervention or intervention from some other source.

Two important trade talks are going on currently. The first is GATT, which is now scheduled for a further revision. GATT, of course, is a trade agreement among several nations in North America and Europe that allows for access to markets by various traded commodities in the various nations involved in the talks. It allows for a reduction in the barriers, either tariff or nontariff, that currently exist to create a friendlier trading environment for those nations involved in the discussions.

The other significant discussion is the trade enhancement discussion that is currently being initiated by the governments of Canada and the United States, which may or may not lead to a trade agreement between those two nations. It is separate and apart from the discussions that are going on at GATT.

My purpose in proposing this resolution is twofold. First, I propose it to assist the agricultural industry in all its diversification, in all the diversified commodities that are produced by the agricultural community, to better understand the trade discussions that are currently going on, both at GATT and in Ottawa and Washington, and to have an opportunity to make input into these discussions.

11:10 a.m.

Let me give members two examples. During the days when some might say I made an honest living, it was my privilege to serve as a member of the Canadian Horticultural Council. I served with that organization during the time of the last round of GATT negotiations. The industry and its membership in that organization heard for years about the discussions that were going on in Geneva and Brussels. This seemed very far removed from those of us who were primary producers or representatives of producers' organizations.

We heard names dropped periodically about certain people who were negotiating on our behalf, people who were relative strangers to the agricultural community but who were obviously becoming a very important part of that community's destiny and future.

Most producers assumed that some of the discussions and activities were not available to the public; they were clandestine and secretive. Certainly, the activities that made up these negotiations were remote. Yet it was the livelihood of these very producers that was being discussed, that was being negotiated and that was on the table before the negotiators who were there supposedly on our behalf.

A second example I might offer is the current discussions between Ottawa and the United States on so-called free trade. Groups such as the Ontario Chicken Producers' Marketing Board are terrified of the ramifications of these discussions. They fear the activities within the US and the efforts on the part of the US to market the commodities it produces at a significantly lower cost than Ontario will jeopardize the industry here.

That board has hired a former assistant deputy minister of Agriculture and Food, Bill Doyle, to monitor and act on its behalf in these discussions. They fear their production and their future will be traded off in an effort to find some way to relax the access for other commodities into this country. There is a producer group that is simply looking for input, looking for an opportunity to learn what activity is going on at the negotiations table and trying to find an opportunity to counter this kind of activity and to get involved in the whole discussion.

The second purpose of this resolution in proposing the establishment of a trade unit within the ministry is to provide information to the various sectors of agriculture on a sector-by-sector basis for the planning of their market strategies, so they might determine whether there are new markets; the size of these markets; the apparent wealth of the nation involved in the marketing strategy; and the ability of that nation to sustain that market and that growth, which are so important in the planning process.

Are new production opportunities required within our own province? Are new processing facilities required within our own province? Are cold storage facilities required within our own province? What are the problems of shipping and transportation? What are the problems of residues on products from chemicals that may be used in our own province but may or may not be used in the country to which a commodity is being shipped?

These are some long-term planning strategies that are very much involved and very important to the appropriate planning for an export strategy. At the same time, the same producer groups require a domestic market strategy. They need to know what their competition is. They need to know whether their efforts to trade with a nation abroad might bring retaliation and might open up a process by which their own domestic market could be hurt as a result of their trade initiatives.

These are commodity groups basic to agriculture that want to be prepared. They need a data bank, a bank of information, so when it comes to a confrontation or discussion around a negotiating table, they can better argue cases before organizations and quasi-judicial bodies such as the Canadian Tariff Board and so that they might seek the mechanism, whatever it is, to be put a fair and reasonable case for their trade initiative.

The Ontario Food Processors Association has brought many cases before the Canadian Tariff Board through its Canadian affiliate, the Canadian Food Processors Association. It has brought cases on whole hot-packed tomatoes, on tomato paste and on processed peaches and pears. There has been an ongoing effort on the part of this association to protect its domestic market base, to protect not only the domestic production of these commodities but also the domestic processing of these commodities and to protect the jobs that are so vital to our economy.

They tell me it takes $100,000 to $200,000 each time one of the Canadian Tariff Board appeals is heard. What is needed is a database to provide the background and information necessary to make the case effectively and well. It is very costly to gather this information and it takes a great deal of time. Often the information is out of date before the appeal can be heard. It is important that these groups have access on an ongoing, up-to-date basis to a data bank of information that can provide them with strong and effective evidence so that they can argue their case well. If the information came from a source as impeccable as government, no one would doubt it or attempt to discredit it.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is currently involved in a countervail debate in which it is looking to protect its own markets from imports from the European Community by applying for a countervailing duty on imported beef products. It could have access and could find this kind of information very useful.

A year ago the Ontario pork producers were involved in a countervail argument with the United States. An action was sought before various trade tribunals to impose a countervailing duty on Canadian pork going to the US. What was the argument? What was the basis for the argument? How does one counter the argument? This commodity group was left pretty well on its own to determine that information, to collect the data and to do it on a timely and effective basis so it could counter the arguments that were being put to the trade tribunals by the American pork producers.

Several years ago the Canadian Wine Institute asked the Canadian Tariff Board to consider a countervailing duty on imported wines from the European Community. It embarked on a very costly study to gather the data on the cost of production and the subsidies that were available to producers in the European Community. The data were not challenged. The data were upheld. The Canadian Tariff Board agreed that unfair trade practices were going on. However, the council could not prove to the Canadian Tariff Board that the domestic industry was being hurt by those unfair trade practices. Some two years later we have ample evidence that this industry is being hurt.

11:20 a.m.

The industry now is compelled to go through the process again, to collect its data, to ask for time before the tribunal and to renew its initiatives, all of which, as I say, is costly and time-consuming. In the meantime, the domestic market base continues to erode.

The balance of the resolution spells out, I hope reasonably clearly, the purpose and the modus operandi of the proposed trade unit. In

summary, what I am proposing is the formation of a trade unit within the marketing branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the purpose of which would be twofold. First, it would keep the industry sectors informed of the activities and trade discussions at the GATT meetings and of the free trade discussions between Canada and the United States and allow producer groups to make input into those trade discussions. Second, the trade unit would provide a database for the planning of production and the preparation of arguments before quasi-judicial panels such as the tariff board.

I would be very interested to hear other members' views on this resolution and I hope I can anticipate members' support. I will reserve the balance of my time for comment at the end of the debate.

Mr. Hayes: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this resolution to establish a trade unit within the marketing branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. As the resolution points out, "The purpose of this unit would be to monitor and participate in international trade discussions under GATT...to determine opportunities and/or potential damage from trade enhancement discussions; to compile a bank of information on internationally traded food commodities, including the country of origin, production conditions and costs of production and the form and amount of any government assistance.

These initiatives would provide Ontario producers, processors and exporters with a database to assist in planning production, researching markets and arguing cases before the tariff board and the other bodies governing international trade matters."

If the intention of the author of this resolution is to halt the farm crisis in this province, I support it. If the intent of this resolution is to preserve the family farm, I also support it. If the intent of this resolution is to reduce imports, increase exports and to ensure that Ontario farmers produce and process as much food of our own as possible, I support it. If the intent of this resolution is to combat such things as the latest US farm bill or the US countervail action on pork, I support it.

But if the intent of this resolution is to enter into discussions on free trade that could disrupt marketing boards, subsidy programs or any other special programs, then I am opposed to it. Maybe when the member for Lincoln has his final couple of moments to respond he can tell us whether he feels the agricultural industry should be on the free trade table for talks.

The trend in the US is to corporate agriculture and vertical integration of the agrifood process. For example, 56 per cent of the hens in that country are owned by 61 companies, all of which have more than one million birds. In Canada, the average is fewer than 30,000 birds. Canadians cannot compete on that magnitude. Besides, we do not want to see our farming turned into a multinational corporation. The family farm is the backbone of this country. If we preserve the family farm, we preserve jobs and communities and we also create many jobs.

If the agriculture industry is on the free trade table, the backbone of this country will be broken because the farm crisis will only worsen. The agriculture industry has too much at stake to consider free trade talks with the United States. Food processing employs more than 250,000 workers in this country and is vital to Ontario as a major market for primary agricultural products, as a source of employment and as a means to reduce imports and increase exports.

One of the major problems is that the food processing industry is controlled by foreign multinationals, which have publicly indicated that any free trade agreement with the US would cause severe dislocation of jobs in Canada and that they would supply Canada from manufacturing facilities in the United States.

Our agricultural implement industry is an example of free trade. It is another industry that is dominated by a few large multinationals. Unlike the auto industry, there are no safeguards or production requirements. Canada produces combines and parts, while the US produces tractors and engines. We have seen the work place shrink at Massey, for example, from more than 5,000 workers six years ago to around 1,000 today. We have seen the ruin of White Farm.

It really irks me when I see the amount of food we import into Ontario. I would like to read out a couple of examples that were compiled by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. These are the dollar amounts of food imported into Ontario alone: apples, $22 million worth; apple juice, $10 million; lettuce, $33 million; tomatoes, $37 million; peaches, $8 million; canned peaches, $6 million; potatoes, $20 million; and tomato paste, $25 million. These are foods that we have the ability to grow and also to process in Ontario.

In conclusion, our objective in our agricultural trade policy should be to expand exports and to replace imports. We have the ways and the means in the agricultural industry to fulfil both of those objectives. I believe we can do it, Mr. Speaker, without having to put agriculture into free trade talks.

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Mancini: I wish to join other members in participating in the debate on ballot item 4 introduced by the member for Lincoln. As I understand the resolution, the honourable member wishes to create a unit within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to monitor trade on an international basis and then to use the information as a vehicle to discuss important matters with foreign nations.

He also wants to use this information to supply the client groups of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food with the information compiled so that when they wish to make representations to their government or before boards which are reviewing matters such as dumping, they will have the information at their fingertips.

This would serve the client groups in two ways. First, it would not cost the client groups any money to compile the information themselves. They would be able to get verification of the information from the government. Second, it would provide a unified approach if they were all using the same information. Of course, the information has to be accurate.

In that respect, I believe the idea to be a good one, although it has been brought to my attention that the market development branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food does carry out many of the functions suggested by the member for Lincoln. In addition, the economics and policy co-ordination branch of the ministry compiles and maintains data on internationally traded food commodities and provides ongoing analysis of trade issues. That branch is actively involved in analysis of the impact of freer trade -- or free trade, as it was originally called by the Prime Minister -- with the United States.

It would be unfair to say that none of the work the honourable member suggests is being done. The member is suggesting that it be done in a different form and that there be a specified unit within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food so that client groups of the ministry and others wishing to have discussions with the ministry would know there is a unit. It would be much easier to deal with one unit instead of having information compiled and gathered by three or four different parts of the ministry. I find no fault with that suggestion.

The matter that concerns me in the member's resolution is that this unit not only would "monitor and participate in international trade discussions under GATT," but also, as he states, "the current discussions on trade enhancement with the United States." Trade enhancement is the new terminology that is being used in Ottawa by Prime Minister Mulroney. It is being substituted for the words "free trade."

As we know, over the past year, particularly since the first ministers' conference attended by our Premier (Mr. Peterson) and since the last Prime Ministers' conference, the term "free trade" is no longer being used in Ottawa because the Prime Minister and parliamentarians there know that free trade is unacceptable, particularly to the automotive community and the farm community. The word "resent" is too strong, but I do not like us using terms such as "trade enhancement" when we know what we are talking about is free trade.

The Premiers of Canada, who have asked Premier Getty of Alberta to head up their delegation in communicating their feelings to the Prime Minister, have stated, and at one time it was agreed, that the provinces should have some representation during the free trade negotiations. We had better call it what it is. The Prime Minister wants free trade; so let us call it exactly what it is.

To this date, the Premiers have not received any clarification from the Prime Minister as to what part he is going to allow the provinces to play during these free trade discussions he has implemented and, through his friendship with Ronald Reagan, now has on the table for discussion.

Every day we hear from the United States' senators and congressmen that they are anxious to have free trade with Canada because they believe Canada has a better deal as far as trade negotiations are concerned. That is not fair. Ontario alone buys more goods from the US than any other country in the world. Unfortunately, that message has not been sold to the American people because the American senators and the American congressmen do not want to sell that particular piece of information.

I say to the member for Lincoln that if we want to unify the way we compile our information within a particular ministry, which would be of help to the agricultural industry of this province, I do not think there is anything wrong with that. However, when he states in his resolution that one of the prime purposes of this new unit would be to discuss and to put forward information on free trade, I question what he really wants to do in this resolution. Is he supporting Mulroney through the back door? Is that what he is doing?

Is he standing up and saying that agriculture, like the automotive industry, must be put on the table for free trade, as the American senators are demanding, along with our cultural sovereignty and our social network?

Mr. Andrewes: Does the member have the vaguest idea what the resolution is all about?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: I know we have experts on the other side; I realize that. If they had not been turfed out of office, I wonder what would be the position today of the former Minister of Agriculture and Food, the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), if he were still the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I wonder if he would be dilly-dallying around trying to support Mulroney through the back door by having agriculture put on the table for free trade.

Mr. Stevenson: My position has not changed one iota.

Mr. Andrewes: Turfed out of office is a bit of an overexaggeration. Loved out of office maybe.

Mr. Mancini: The Premier has led all the other Premiers. The Premier of Ontario has flushed out all the other Premiers on free trade. He sure has. At the first conference he attended, everyone, including my friends across the floor, expected that every province in Canada would issue a press release supporting free trade and Ontario would be the lone province speaking up for caution and moderation. However, that did not happen and it was because of the leadership of the Ontario Premier. That is exactly why it did not happen.

With the changes of leadership in Alberta and Quebec, we are going to see, on a continual basis, pressure not only from Ontario but also from all other provinces to ensure that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney does not sell us out to the American interests. If it is the intention of the member for Lincoln to try to unify different parts of the ministries in order to facilitate the availability of information, I think that is a good idea. However, if he wants to help Brian Mulroney through the back door, he is not going to get any help from us.

Mr. Stevenson: I am very pleased to rise and join this discussion. I very strongly support the resolution put forward by the member for Lincoln.

In order to get into this discussion, I want to take a few minutes, and I hope not too long, to talk about the problems of dealing with the present situation in taking countervail action or anti-dumping action in Canada. We do have a Special Import Measures Act which is under the federal jurisdiction. The purpose of this act is to provide protection for Ontario producers, manufacturers, companies, farmers, or whomever, from unfair competition from outside sources --

11:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is free trade. That is what Mulroney favours.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Niagara Falls is being a little too noisy.

Mr. Stevenson: The outside sources are marketing in Canada at lower prices than they sell on the home market. That is called dumping. It can also come from unfair or excessive subsidization in other jurisdictions. That is referred to in the act as subsidizing.

First, one has to prove that it is going on. As the member for Lincoln pointed out, one has to also prove there is damage to the domestic industry. If the whole procedure is completed and both those aspects are proven, then the federal government will take action and provide either a countervailing duty which responds to unfair subsidization or an antidumping duty that goes against the dumping action into this country.

Basically, the format is that one must provide a formal document which explains either the dumping or the subsidization that is occurring from the other country and, at that time, give at least some indication of damage. That document is filed with the customs and excise division of Revenue Canada. Within 21 days of that being filed, Revenue Canada can ask for any further documentation it feels it needs on the issue at hand. There is an additional 30-day period for it to launch an initial investigation.

At that point, it either rejects the claim or it goes on to initiate a further investigation into the issue if it looks as though some of the claims are correct. There is a 90-day period in which this additional investigation is carried on. It contacts exporters, importers and all people involved in the issue. It asks questions relating to either dumping or countervailing and then it reports its findings.

Three things can then happen. It can find that the application is not valid and it will drop the whole issue. It can talk to the country and the importers involved to get some sort of compromise on the issue. It would then go to the complainant group in Canada and decide whether that compromise would be acceptable.

An example is the importation of processed beef into Canada where Revenue Canada reached a compromise with the European Community beef exporters. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association would not accept that and it went to the third alternative, which was to announce a temporary duty. It then goes for a further study for the final determination, which is done by the Canadian Import Tribunal. It is a semi-independent group. Its duty is solely to determine whether damage is actually occurring. It has 120 days to study and announce its decision.

At that point, after its study on the damage to the domestic industry, the temporary duty can be dropped, maintained or increased. After the import tribunal announcement, Revenue Canada actually has a six-month period to make the final determination on what the duty should be.

The problem that our farm community is running into here is one of definition. There is no question that the Ontario government could assist our producers in improving the Special Import Measures Act to improve the definition of light goods and light industry. We currently have a court challenge against the Canadian cattlemen's submission on the importation of processed beef. The challenge basically comes down to the fact that our producers produce cattle and the importers are importing beef.

The challenge says they are not light goods and, therefore, the issue as put forward by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is invalid. Of course, as soon as those cattle go to market they become beef, and any fool knows they are light goods. However, they obviously are running into some difficulty on that issue.

The other thing that is a major problem is the funding. It has cost the Canadian Cattlemen's Association about $100,000 to bring its submission forward. The Ontario Corn Producers' Association will have a similar cost. This is out of the realm of what many farm groups -- and I suspect many manufacturing groups -- can afford to spend to try to challenge some of these importations. There is no reason the government could not help in some way or other in relieving these groups of a portion of the cost and having the data bank available. The member for Lincoln had suggested that would be an important aspect of reducing the cost.

The provincial government can show leadership by having the experts available and having the data available. Right now, it is showing no leadership at all. An example is the lack of reaction to the US farm bill where Alberta, Saskatchewan, the federal government and the Ontario corn producers have all taken action and the provincial government is still totally silent on the issue. The other great indication of leadership it has taken is that it has closed two trade offices in the US. That is a step backwards, not a step ahead.

One example of an Ontario producer group that could use the help would be our peanut producers. We have a clear indication of dumping of peanuts into the Canadian market. We have an infant industry of peanut growing and processing in this province that is under some real financial strain at the moment. Until new varieties are produced in Canada for the Ontario environment, it is going to continue to struggle for some years.

To take any action on the obvious dumping that is occurring in the Canadian market is absolutely impossible without at least a $100,000 bill. They know they face that even before starting. If the provincial government could come forward and give them some support, it would be a real help to that very young and very small industry.

The financial assistance has to come indirectly, I am aware, but there have to be ways of doing it. I am sure the Americans and the Europeans would find ways of doing it if they had the opportunity.

11:50 a.m.

Mr. Ramsay: It is a pleasure to rise amid the hisses and boos of my own caucus members, whom I love and adore. Anyway, it is a pleasure to rise and speak in favour of this motion. Fortunately, I feel the language has been couched in such a fairly neutral way that we are able to do that. I share somewhat the concern of the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), who expressed his concerns about free trade, though upon reading this motion, it seems to be dealing fairly with the issue that there could also be potential damage from trade enhancement discussions. I think it is fairly well addressed and invites us to take a look at the matter and study it. We can support that.

It is quite timely, and I am pleased to see that this proposed unit would monitor and participate in the GATT talks. Until now and until the Tokyo discussions a few weeks ago among what I guess they call the Big Five, with the infamous rocket attack, GATT did not consider agricultural topics. The Prime Minister, trying to grapple with the farm problem, decided that might be the appropriate place to bring up these discussions. It is something that is really necessary, because what we have is about three major competing agricultural systems in this world.

They govern themselves quite differently and they all have their own problems. What happens when it comes to exporting food is that in some cases they add further subsidization to export those products and cause problems for other people. The European Community is one of these areas. This year we see two of them doing this.

I envy European farmers because they are allowed to grow all they want and they have terrifically high support prices. As a farmer, I would love to have it, but it is the ridiculous system to keep on producing food. For what reason? To encourage farmers from all 10 countries in Europe to keep producing food and to get into subsidies of about $16 billion in 1984, as the European Community did, is absolutely ridiculous.

I do not suppose I would be so critical if it was their problem only, but then they decide to export that problem and create high agricultural subsidies in trading with Third World countries; so what we have is a flood on the market. For instance, France has got rid of surpluses of grain and chickens by offering extra low prices to foreign countries. This floods the Arab and other Third World countries in that part of the world and hampers our chances to export food to that area at a reasonable market price.

After France saw its share of the Algerian wheat market drop from 41 per cent to 16 per cent because of such tactics, the United States started to retaliate. We basically have trade wars going on out there where a country such as Canada cannot compete at all. It is something we have to study.

I also commend the member for Durham-York for speaking about the underfunding and the lack of resources commodity groups have in trying to grapple with these problems and research the areas and commodities that are being subsidized below the cost of production and are coming into our country and being dumped, as the expression goes. That is causing great harm to our farm economy. It is a real financial strain for our commodity groups to build a case. To build a case for the tariff board is very expensive and time-consuming.

What we would have here is a database that could be accessed by the different commodity groups in preparing their cases. I am very much in favour of that. We need to see more support for commodity groups in defending themselves from commodities from other countries being dumped.

Trade enhancement, the euphemism for free trade, has been mentioned here, and it is something about which New Democrats and all of agriculture are concerned. If one looks at some of the statistics involving trade between our two countries, we are the losers. To open free trade with the United States would basically devastate Ontario agriculture. There is surplus capacity in the US that could wipe us out in the production of eggs, chickens and commodities we thought were safe because they were highly perishable, such as milk and dairy products.

Today, with modern transportation systems, we are no longer safe from that. Upper New York state could supply Ontario with dairy products if the gates were opened.

We have to be concerned not only about the farm industry as an industry, and that economy, but also about a way of life in this province, and it needs to be preserved for that reason also. We need to know where we stand and have a good database when it comes to free trade.

The other topic this unit could be looking at is the US Food Security Act, commonly known as the US farm bill. This probably will be of graver concern to us in the immediate future. The US has proposed to spend C$73 billion over three years to subsidize American agriculture. The American farmers have a lot stronger lobby group than Canadian farmers do. They have really got to their politicians and they have a bill that is going to give them tremendous support in that industry. It is also going to hurt us as Ontario producers and Canadian producers.

I had trouble imagining what $73 billion is. As a way to describe it, if a farmer went out and bought a $62,000 tractor, he could do that every day from the very start of our calendar, when Christ was alive, through today and for another 200 years. He could purchase a $62,000 tractor a day. That is how much money it is. It is a lot of money and it is massive support for American farmers, support that, no matter what the political will is in this country or province, we could not match. It is something we need to be on top of right away, something a unit could be investigating.

It could also be proposing talks with our American counterparts to discuss how the bill will impact upon our industry.

It is of grave concern to farming, as we are in a free fall situation now. We do not need this extra, undue competition from the US Food Security Act. It is a very big concern to us over here. We need all the help we can get. If we can get a trade unit established in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that can study this and can be accessible to all the farm groups so they can prepare their own cases in defending their industry, it will be of assistance to the farm community and to the community of Ontario as a whole.

I rise today in support of this and I hope my fellow members will also.

Mr. Andrewes: I thank members for their words of encouragement and support. It was somewhat significant that the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) and the member for Essex South both rose to speak on this resolution, because they represent areas where agricultural commodities are predominant and where such a creative initiative as has been proposed in this resolution would have its greatest impact.

I was somewhat shocked, though, at the words of the member for Essex South. He obviously missed the boat. I am not sure whether he supports the resolution. He disagrees with the wording. The wording to me to some degree is a matter of semantics, but he attempted throughout his remarks to impute motives on my behalf, suggesting I was assisting the Prime Minister of Canada and all sorts of things, which indicate his lack of background in the agricultural industry.

That lack of background speaks quite clearly to his misunderstanding of the intent of the resolution. Obviously, he does not sense the frustrations shown by the industry in the GATT discussions, particularly producers of pork, cattle, wine, fruit and vegetables. These products impinge very heavily on the riding he represents, and he has completely missed his opportunity to speak on behalf of his constituents in this Legislature in support of this resolution.

Again, I thank all honourable members for their support and appreciate this opportunity.

FLOOD INSURANCE

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

Motion agreed to.

TRADE UNIT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Andrewes has moved resolution 34.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I have here a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1987, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. This was signed by Lincoln Alexander, dated Toronto, May 22, 1986.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RIVER BANK EROSION

Mr. Gillies: I want to advise the House of the rather serious situation threatening the east end of my riding in Brantford. Weather conditions and the pattern of movements of the Grand River have led to serious bank erosion, threatening seven or eight properties in the east end of Brantford. The mayor and I toured these properties last night, and it is very apparent to us that if there is further rain, there could be further damage. I understand from phoning down in the last couple of minutes that there has been another five or six feet of erosion since last night.

The families affected, of course, have had to evacuate their homes. They are aware that their insurance policies will not cover this type of damage, which I am sure is no surprise to members, and I am calling today on the province to assist these families either in the relocation they will need if they cannot return to their homes or in restorative measures to the bank for those properties that might be salvageable.

I understand there is provision for a capital relocation fund to be made available by the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the municipality. This has been done in the past, I believe, in Onondaga township in Brant county and, I am advised by the former Minister of Natural Resources, in Thunder Bay. I call upon the ministers involved to devote their energies towards providing some sort of salvation or compensation for these families who are losing their homes.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Later today, the government will have the opportunity to move Bill 94 back to the Legislature for clause-by-clause debate. Several weeks ago, the government put Bill 94 on the back burner of the standing committee on social development agenda. It stated that its reason for doing this was to allow free and fair negotiation with the Ontario Medical Association. Eleven meetings later, the OMA's position has not changed; the OMA continues to want to be able to extra bill.

The OMA's current position, as outlined in the Toronto Star today, has not changed from its 1978 position when they negotiated an agreement with the then Minister of Health, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell). The fact is, the doctors in this province want to continue to extra bill and the people of this province want a ban on extra billing. The former Minister of Health, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) learned that when he wanted to force the doctors at least to give advance notice on extra billing. He had to change the Health Disciplines Act to enforce that.

The solution to this problem is through legislation. It is time for the Legislature to act today. In the standing committee on social development, I will move a motion that Bill 94 be reported back to the Legislature. That will give us the opportunity to deal with the bill clause by clause, put forward positive suggestions and amendments to the legislation and then enact it into law. I hope we can expect the support of the Liberal Party and perhaps even of the Conservative Party today.

KITCHENER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Last evening I had the privilege of sitting down with about 800 other members of the Kitchener Chamber of Commerce to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the chamber. It was during the months of April, May and June 1886 that 63 Berlin merchants and industrialists began the Berlin Board of Trade.

The interesting

part is that since that time the Berlin Board of Trade and the Kitchener Chamber of Commerce have consistently been an energetic, innovative force in our community. The board of trade and the chamber of commerce made the initial efforts in the formation of a gas company to light our streets, the Berlin-Waterloo Hospital and the Berlin-Waterloo Street Railway. They have worked for paved roads, fire protection, sewage service, etc., and for 100 years they have been working for decent mail delivery.

I congratulate the chamber, its 1,000 member firms, its 1,400 members, president Sid Bergstein, president-elect Gary Alcock and general manager Jack Middlemass on an excellent and auspicious event last evening.

PARALEGALS

Mr. O'Connor: I wish to announce to the House that today I will introduce for first reading legislation to regulate paralegal agents in Ontario. There is a burgeoning profession of people serving the obvious needs of the consumer for competent and affordable representation in traffic court, small claims court, landlord and tenant tribunals and immigration proceedings. At present they are unregulated, leaving the public at risk from the very few who are unqualified.

The Law Society of Upper Canada has laid charges against some paralegals for practising law without a licence. Those charges have been dismissed by the courts. The government acknowledges the need to move into the field but has failed to date to take any of the necessary steps to ensure public protection.

This bill will regulate the activities of paralegal agents in prescribed courts and tribunals. It establishes the paralegal agents committee to make regulations with respect to the standards of admission and qualification for paralegal agents. The bill also provides for the disciplining of such agents.

I wish to thank Brian Lawrie of the Independent Paralegal Guild of Ontario for his and the guild's significant contribution to the development of this legislation. Mr. Lawrie is seated in the members' gallery, and I ask him to rise and allow the House to acknowledge his presence.

SENTENCING OF POLLUTERS

Mrs. Grier: A court decision in Toronto made yesterday a very significant day in the history of environmental law. For the first time in Canada, the president of a company that has been a persistent polluter has been sentenced to a year in jail. In addition, the company was fined $200,000. Contrast this with the $16,000 fine that was all the provincial government could have levied against Dow Chemical for a perchloroethylene spill that contaminated the St. Clair River.

Metropolitan Toronto is to be commended for the strength of its resolve. It has been prepared to do what the Ministry of the Environment has not yet done: to get tough with polluters and to treat offences against the environment as the white-collar crimes they are. We will not stop pollution without getting convictions against offenders and levying fines that are so high they cannot be considered a cost of doing business.

Last November, we in the New Democratic Party released a nine-point program for cleaning up the environment. We called for improved enforcement and higher fines, the jailing of corporate executives if spills were found to be deliberate, a superfund for chemical cleanups and improved regulations for air and water emissions. It is time for the Ministry of the Environment to assume its responsibilities and to get on with cleaning up our environment. It is time to get on with doing the job.

FREE TRADE

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Today and all this week Canada's representatives and those of the United States will be sitting down to discuss a free trade agreement between our two countries. The US representative, Peter Murphy, says everything is on the bargaining table and the purpose of these talks is the complete removal of nontariff barriers between the two countries. He also says he does not know what Canadians mean by the word "culture," and he suspects it is another word for protectionism.

I believe Mr. Murphy should be informed that the American term for culture is "national security." He should be prepared at the bargaining table to remove all nontariff barriers to the US. That means, if necessary, dismantling the American defence industry, the space program and the Star Wars project; abolishing all countervail procedures; removing mortgage deductibility from the workers' homes in the US, and removing all farm support systems and thereby, if necessary, allowing American farmers to starve.

He should come to the bargaining table with all 435 congressmen, all 100 senators and all 50 states in line. In short, he should be prepared, if necessary, to dismantle the American way as we know it today.

PHYSIOTHERAPY

Mr. Andrewes: This afternoon I will table a petition signed by some 8,000 people in support of the Ontario Physiotherapy Association. The petition calls on the government to end the inequity that currently exists between the fee the Ontario health insurance plan pays to medical doctors for physiotherapy services and the fee it pays to physiotherapists.

The frustration of this group of health care professionals sparked a rally today. Physiotherapy is a profession that is dominated by women. Last December the president of the Ontario Physiotherapy Association asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to test the principle of equality that he espoused in the last election. The government has dragged its feet for a year on this issue. If it believes in equal pay principles, it should practise what it preaches.

2:12 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EXTRA BILLING

Hon. Mr. Elston: I would like to bring the members of the House up to date about the government's plans to end extra billing by doctors in this province. The government has met with the Ontario Medical Association over the past 10 months. We have had a number of informal discussions and a series of 11 formal meetings. Regrettably, we were unable to reach a negotiated settlement, something the government had genuinely hoped to achieve.

The OMA representatives were unable to accept the basic principle underlying our national health care system, that no patient should have to pay extra for medical services that are supposed to be publicly insured in the first place. The government believes this principle is fundamental and cannot be compromised.

We have two extremely important reasons for proceeding: (1) to protect patients from having to pay extra charges and (2) to permit our government to reclaim the $53 million a year currently being withheld from the people of Ontario by the federal government because some doctors continue to extra bill.

Accordingly, we will be moving to pass the legislation ending extra billing as quickly as possible. I have therefore asked that the bill now be reported back to the House by the standing committee on social development.

Mr. Andrewes: Briefly, I want to comment on the statement made by the Minister of Health. We are somewhat disappointed that the minister has to come before the House to make such a statement and that he has to say in the statement that he and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) have been unable to reach a negotiated settlement with the Ontario Medical Association.

I remind the minister, the Attorney General and the government as a whole that to make a negotiated settlement, it takes two sides willing to enter fairly and reasonably into negotiations, not a government that is inflexible, that refuses to move its position and that sits at the table and simply ignores what the other side is offering.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Andrewes: I assure the government that the interests of democracy and the people of this province will be represented as we thoroughly debate Bill 94.

Mr. Rae: In response to the Minister of Health, one always has to have a sense of irony in this business or else one would go absolutely bananas. I have listened to the gobbledegook from his mouth and from the mouth of his leader for so long. Just 10 days ago, I personally was described as draconian and dictatorial for making the revolutionary proposal that we should be dealing with the legislation. What was dictatorial and draconian 10 days ago is apparently today the height of democratic and sensible activity.

The minister has had 10 months of so-called negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association, during which time the OMA has not changed a single position with respect to the principle. It appears the Ontario government has not changed its mind either. All I can say is that it has taken the minister a long time to recognize what all of us on this side of the House have recognized, that it is absolutely essential for extra billing to be ended. It should have been ended a long time ago, and there is no further reason for any delay whatsoever.

We look forward to participating in the debate, but we also look forward to the passage of the legislation. I am sure the minister is aware that if the government agrees to support the motion that stands in the name of my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) today in committee, the bill can be reported to the House on Monday and we can begin to debate the legislation on Wednesday. There is no reason or excuse for further delay, and I do not think the people of the province will accept it.

I am interested to see that one of the reasons the government has to proceed is "to protect patients from having to pay extra charges." I am delighted to see that statement, particularly in view of the number of times I have asked him about this. I will make it part of my statement today. We believe patients in the province should not have to pay for the delay, the dilatoriness and the dithering that have been part of the Liberal government's approach to this issue for several months. We believe those patients should be compensated by the government with part of the money that will come from Ottawa and now held in escrow.

We look forward to patients not having to pay extra charges, but not only as of whenever the bill is passed, because that is a matter that remains to be seen. They should be compensated back to the time when this legislation was anticipated and promised, when the leader signed the accord and when the government indicated the legislation would be forthcoming. The patients should not have to pay through the nose for the government's inability to make up its mind as to what needed to be done.

FOREST FIRES

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: In view of the Terrace Bay evacuation and recent serious fires in eastern Canada, I will bring the members of the House up to date on yesterday's incident and on the forest fire situation in general across the province at this time.

Yesterday afternoon approximately one third of the 2,600 residents of Terrace Bay were evacuated to nearby towns when a 250-hectare blaze threatened an outlying subdivision. A preliminary fire investigation indicates the blaze may have been the result of work being done on the CP Rail line nearby.

Despite strong winds and quick spread, Ministry of Natural Resources forest firefighters and air attack teams, working with municipal firefighters, local police and fir teams from the Kimberly-Clark mill, were able to take quick action. The first report of the fire came at 2:20 p.m. The evacuation began at 3 p.m. By 7 p.m. residents were back in their homes. No one was injured and no private property was damaged by fire.

The firefighters were backed up by four MNR helicopters -- and I hope my critics will change that number -- and five heavy water bombers, including a CL-215 that had just returned from firefighting in New Brunswick. By the way, both CL-215 water bombers that were sent down east are now back in Ontario.

At this moment, the Terrace Bay fire is in good shape. Fifty MNR firefighters are manning a hose line that completely surrounds the fire, and water bombers are continuing to work the edges of the fire area. There is no further damage to the town.

One of the heavy water bombers working on the fire was involved in a mishap while picking up water. The aircraft is beached on Hays Lake about 10 kilometres west of Terrace Bay. No injuries occurred.

The Terrace Bay incident is a very timely reminder that the fire season is under way and that everyone has to be extremely careful.

Right now, there are 21 forest fires burning in the province, four of them not under control. The largest blaze is 32 kilometres northwest of Red Lake, a 480-hectare fire that is being attacked and is not a threat to the town.

The western half of northern Ontario is definitely the area that bears watching. The fire hazard rating in this area ranges from high to extreme. Forest fire officials do not expect any change in this for at least the next four days. Additional fire crews and equipment are being moved into the area to provide backup to local firefighters.

In the eastern half of northern Ontario and in the Algonquin region, the fire hazard is moderate.

Mr. Rae: We very much appreciate the statement the Minister of Natural Resources made today. It brings home to me in particularly the nature of the risk facing many communities in the sense that it was only on Thursday that I was in Terrace Bay for the entire day. At that time, we were discussing with many people the fact that it had been a dry period for some time and that apparently there was a greater risk.

As we hear of the water bombers that are being used, it reminds us once again of the fact that instead of a government jet, we have water bombers that are being used, and gives us a chance to reflect on the wisdom of that decision that was taken some time ago.

DISASTER RELIEF

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I wish to take this opportunity to present to the Legislature Chief George Hunter of the Winisk band council, who is seated in the members' gallery.

As members are aware, the village of Winisk has undergone extensive damage as a result of flash flooding last Friday. Let me reiterate the deep concern of all members over this tragedy. At 11 o'clock this morning, the woman who was missing was found dead.

In a flooding tragedy, funds are hard to get. I ask all members to help to collect funds through their riding offices. Yesterday, I was told by the municipal people that when there is flooding, money is very scarce because of a lack of sympathy for people who have built homes near a river. I ask members to help with this.

Mr. Pope: With respect to the statement by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, I want to speak directly to the honourable chief on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus in this House and say we extend our deep condolences to him and his people for their recent loss in this very tragic natural disaster. We assure him of our support for the efforts which must surely come from this government, not from private pockets but from the government, to support him and his people in recovering from this disaster, in relocating their village and in getting on with their lives in their own community of Winisk.

Mr. Rae: First, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to express our feelings of sadness to Chief Hunter on the loss of two of the members of his band in the recent flooding in Winisk. I hope the chief will convey, on behalf of the whole assembly, our own feeling of loss in this House because of what has happened.

I hope as well that he will know he has a great many friends in court in this Legislature fighting for the cause of his band. I and my colleagues in the official opposition are more than happy to raise questions and to raise issues with the government, both publicly and privately, to make sure his band gets the assistance it is fully entitled to from the Ontario government. We are more than prepared to work with him in that regard.

RESIGNATION OF PREMIER BENNETT

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have just received notice that Premier Bennett of British Columbia has announced his intention to resign and has called a leadership contest.

Just before I came into the House, I had an opportunity to phone Premier Bennett and express my personal best wishes to him. He has served British Columbia for 12 and a half years. He has arranged for a stunning exposition of Canada's wares for the world in Expo 86, which I believe will be a fitting testimonial to his long reign. It has been a controversial one, but as someone who has come to know him fairly well at the councils of first ministers across this country, he has provided great leadership. This country will miss his leadership and his singleminded determination in a large number of areas.

We have again seen the resignation of a politician who has made a great contribution to this country. I know that every member of this Legislature wishes him well.

Mr. Pope: First, with respect to the statement of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on the resignation of Premier Bennett, I wish to say that many of us in this caucus had the opportunity to meet with Premier Bennett and members of his cabinet over a period of years. We enjoyed the camaraderie. We enjoyed the federal-provincial meetings with Premier Bennett and the members of his cabinet. We regret his departure. We wish him well in retirement and we wish the government of British Columbia well as it chooses a successor.

2:27 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Pope: It is out of worry and concern for the thousands of workers in northern Ontario, their families and the communities of the north that I rise to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. What specific, immediate and concrete programs for industrial development and job creation does the minister have for northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member was absent on a few days, as I mentioned last week, when several initiatives were mentioned by the Treasurer. The Treasurer mentioned several initiatives that were being opened up in the north. We have taken several initiatives such as the new ventures program, which we hope will create a lot of new jobs in the small business sector. We are looking at opening additional offices of the Ontario Development Corp. in the north. As the member knows, there is no easy solution when we have the job losses that we have.

Mr. Martel: What you are saying is that you have nothing.

Mr. Pope: As the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) of the New Democratic Party says, what that means is the minister has nothing.

I was in Timmins yesterday, where 269 salaried workers at Kidd Creek mine were given layoff notices effective immediately and on September 2, and there are another 180 contract employees whose contracts will not be renewed. That is in addition to layoffs in Elliot Lake, Sault. Ste. Marie, Wawa and Terrace Bay, and impending layoffs in Thunder Bay.

In the face of all these layoffs over the past few months, why is the minister so paralysed by the situation? Why can he not act and put in place job creation programs?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member mentioned several areas where there have been job losses, and they are of great concern to us. One thing he neglected to mention was that when his government was in power and when he was minister, the jobs at Algoma Steel dropped from 12,000 to 8,000, a loss of 4,000 jobs. I can only say we are not looking for short-term solutions. We are looking for long-term solutions that will create additional jobs in the north.

Mr. Pope: In other words, the workers in northern Ontario can go to hell in the short term as far as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time for members' statements has expired. Final supplementary.

Mr. Pope: Quite right. The minister wanted to give me a history lesson. The history lesson is this: There is nothing in the accord, with the exception of youth employment, that has job creation as its goal. There is nothing in the speech from the throne on job creation, a fact I raised with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) the day after the speech from the throne. There is nothing in this budget that is going to offer any immediate job creation programs for the workers of northern Ontario.

Why will the minister not look at the alternatives? Why will he not look at things such as the bridge employment programs that we began in 1983? Why will he not look at accelerated electromagnetic exploration of our mineral deposits in the north? Why will he not look at putting in place portable mills for small and medium-sized mines so that they can go into production and create mining jobs in the north? There is a whole range of capital options

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has placed three questions already.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: To deal with the three questions, or at least with one or two of them, if the previous minister, now the member, were to look at both the speech from the throne and the budget, he would see many things in there that are helping, as I have just stated. There are no short-term answers to this. This government, under the Premier and all of the ministers, is working very hard to put into place something that will help with jobs in the north.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Andrewes: My question is for the Minister of Health. A press report today indicates that the Ontario Medical Association, in its discussions with the minister and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) last Tuesday, offered to provide all medical services to anyone in any community in the province at the Ontario health insurance plan rates. Can the minister confirm that this offer was made to him?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I would like to comment about the

article that appeared in one of the papers. I can tell the honourable gentleman that the essence of this proposal enshrines in it for ever, and asks the government to condone, a two-tiered system of medicine that we do not think will form the basis of good medical care in this province. We cannot sign a document that enshrines this principle in health care in this province.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister is admitting there was a document and there was an offer to that end. I see the minister nodding.

The OMA has offered to provide a full range of services to senior citizens, people on public assistance programs and people receiving emergency care at the OHIP rate. The minister has now confirmed that the doctors have further offered to provide a full range of services to anyone, anywhere, at the OHIP rate.

In his statement, the minister said "no patient should have to pay extra for medical services that are supposed to be publicly insured in the first place." Contrary to what the minister said in his statement, they have now made the two offers that would satisfy this point. What counterproposal has the government made to attempt to make these discussions meaningful, or have these so-called negotiations simply been an exercise in futility?

Hon. Mr. Elston: If the honourable gentlemen reads the document, as I know he has, he will see that there is no guarantee that every patient in this province will be able to receive insured services at the OHIP rate.

Mr. Andrewes: That is not true.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is right. What is in that document is a request of this government to endorse the fact that people in this province will have to pay extra for medically necessary treatment that is insured anyway. We cannot do that. That is not the basis on which this country has operated its medical care system for a long time.

While I have the opportunity, I will also add that, in effect, an offer not dissimilar to this one was made back in 1978 with respect to services delivered in hospitals. I can tell the honourable gentleman and the people of this province that we have seen that this voluntary system has not functioned properly. When people go to hospitals in this province, they do suffer extra billing for insured medical services. That has a great deal to do with why the offer was not acceptable.

Mr. Andrewes: I listened carefully to the minister's answer, and he has not named one single item of compromise that he has brought to that discussion. He has indicated in this statement that he has been negotiating. He has had 11 formal negotiating meetings. He accepts the fact that the doctors have offered substantive concessions to provide services at the medicare rate, but neither he nor the Attorney General has brought any meaningful concessions to these discussions.

Mr. McClellan: Speech, speech.

Mr. Breaugh: This is a really good speech. Do not interrupt it.

Mr. Andrewes: Listen, you guys put them there.

Mr. Martel: Thank God we did it. You guys would not do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All interjections are out of order. Place the final supplementary, please.

Mr. Andrewes: Now that the minister has turned his back on good-faith bargaining --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Andrewes: -- and is attempting to provoke a situation which people in this province may not --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are you going to place the question? Please do, immediately.

Mr. Andrewes: Now that the minister has turned his back on good-faith bargaining, what is he going to do to provide medical services to the people of this province?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have to apologize. Just as the member was finishing his question, the group erupted into a considerable amount of cheers because he was able to get to the point at last. I am sorry; I did not hear his question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Because of the length of the

preamble to the question, will members of the House allow him to ask the question? Very briefly.

Mr. Andrewes: Is the minister attempting to disrupt the medical care system of this province by his bad-faith bargaining?

Hon. Mr. Elston: That was a longer question than the one he asked. I know that much without hearing the words. My answer to this gentleman is no, we are not disrupting the medical system in this province. We are ensuring that it continues to exist as an insured benefit to all of the people, not just some of the people, of this province.

We in this party are not prepared to see one single person being required to pay extra for insured medical services in this province. That is the bottom line for us. It may be something different for the member, but we want a system that provides the same high level of medical care to all people, no matter what their means, and not a system where they are required to put their bank balance on the line.

Mr. Rae: What was draconian 10 days ago and a safety valve two years ago seems to have changed. All we can say on this side is thank goodness, let us get on with it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister explain why it is still the practice of the Workers' Compensation Board to deny on a systematic basis compensation to miners with various cancers and to their widows and survivors who are applying for compensation in their names? As he will know, there is more than ample scientific evidence which very clearly establishes that gold miners, uranium miners, mixed-ore miners and silver miners are all far more likely than the general population to get lung cancer, tracheal cancer, bronchial cancer and stomach cancer. Can he explain why those cases are still being systematically denied by the WCB?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wyre: The leader of the third party is correct in that in some cases of lung cancer there has been acceptance of claims and in many other forms of cancer there has been no acceptance. The basis of those denials of claims has been the view of the board that no direct link has been established in individual case to individual case, despite the higher-than-normal mortality rate among the miners from those kinds of cancers.

As the honourable gentleman knows, phase 2 of the study by Dr. Muller is due, is now out for peer review and should be available by the end of this spring, some time next month. As well, the member will know we are imminently putting in place the members of the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, and they will be able to offer advice to the Workers' Compensation Board on this important issue.

Mr. Rae: I wonder who Dr. Muller's peers are at the Workers' Compensation Board, the Atomic Energy Control Board or the Ministry of Labour, all of which, we understand, have now had copies of this report for several weeks, if not months. Since he raised the question of the Muller report, will the minister tell us why this report has been going around the bureaucracy but has not been given in any way, shape or form to the workers involved or affected or to their families? Can he tell us why that is being allowed by his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Yes, I would be pleased to. The member is correct in that officials of the ministry and the board -- and I am not sure whether the Atomic Energy Control Board has, but certainly the other two -- have had copies of the draft study by Dr. Muller for some time now, since March I believe. The matter is out for review by Dr. Muller's peers, scientists who are available.

I anticipated this question and I want to say two things to the member.

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I say this to the steelworkers union and others as well: If the steelworkers union wishes to appoint a peer representative, a scientist, to peer review this draft report, it can do so. I am also authorized to say Dr. Muller will be pleased if, when the final, official report is issued, we also issue the original draft at that time.

Mr. Rae: I have a copy of an advertisement, which admittedly ran several years ago, from the Industrial Accident Prevention Association. Since that time, it has run a series of ads with respect to workers in this province that most people would find offensive. They make the argument that it is the workers themselves who are responsible for their illnesses, not some other agency or the employers.

Through the Workers' Compensation Board, the government is spending literally more then $35 million for those accident prevention associations, at the same time as the steelworkers and other trade unions that are attempting to represent their members are getting no compensation or funding. Can the minister explain why that double standard exists, with this kind of sexist nonsense going on in the name of the Industrial Accident Prevention Association, when nothing is being done for anybody else?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Let me say at the outset that I personally resent this kind of ad. As the honourable member points out, it is several years old. I trust it will not happen again. This government does not appreciate nor support it. It has been openly critical of this kind of ad in general.

Beyond that, on the comparison with the amount of money received by the accident prevention associations, we can have a good debate in the standing committee on public accounts and elsewhere, and I know we will, about whether that money is being well spent and whether we are getting good value for our money. The member will know the initiatives we have taken.

It is rather unfair to compare that with the compensation issue. It is a case of comparing apples and oranges. The ability of workers to attempt to get redress and compensation will be enhanced by the second Muller study and by the Industrial Disease Standards Panel.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind members of standing order 29(e). It says, "In putting an oral question, no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question, the member is not to debate the matter to which it refers."

New question, the member for York South.

Mr. Rae: I do not know why I am getting singled out for this treatment, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask another question of the Minister of Labour, asking it as clearly as I am able. Can he confirm, as stated yesterday in the report issued by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, that as of May 1985 there has been an official policy of his ministry, which is that inspectors are no longer going to be making regular cycle inspections with respect to industrial sites; rather, it is simply going to be responding to emergencies, to crises and to calls into the ministry with respect to a particular problem.

Hon.