Tory to McGuinty: Six Question on Caledonia

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for Premier. I should say, by the way, that young Dominic is a smart boy. He's going to go places.
Interjections.

Interjection: He's a Liberal, John.

Mr. Tory: There's still time.

My question is to the Premier. Premier, today the occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia enters its 210th day. That's 210 days in which you've tried your very best to play down and avoid the issues raised by both sides in this dispute. You ignored the early warnings in the summer of 2005. You've downplayed the concerns of the residents of Caledonia whose homes back onto Douglas Creek Estates.

1410

While you've never said so yourself, your lawyers appeared in court as recently as yesterday and said -- and I quote them -- that "the new owner," namely your government, "does not object to the protesters being on site." This was an argument repeated from the earlier court hearing.
I asked you earlier, in a letter dated August 27, what steps have you taken, if any, to insist on a reasonable minimum number of standards --
The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The question has been asked. Premier.
Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm always grateful to receive the question, but I think it's important for the leader of the official opposition to cast his mind back to the fact that, 11 years later, Ipperwash Provincial Park remains occupied and unavailable to the people of Ontario. That is the result of a particular approach brought by that gentleman's government. We think it was the wrong approach, so we're bringing a different approach.

While it's important that we remain patient, and while I can understand that there are some growing frustrations on the part of residents on both sides of this issue, I am working, hand in hand with the federal government, together with the residents. We are at the table day in and day out, working as hard as we can to resolve this in a peaceful manner.

Mr. Tory: A very interesting answer, but not responsive at all to the question.
I'll ask you again: I think it is reasonable when someone is using your land -- in this case our land, land that belongs to the people of Ontario -- since you're giving permission for them to use it, that you would insist there be a written agreement, as there would be in almost any other case, that would set out reasonable minimum conditions in terms of things like standards of behaviour that would be expected by you as the owner of the land and by the public in whose hands you hold this as a trustee.
Since you're willing to have them stay there, why have you not asked and required that this kind of an agreement be entered into, one that sets out minimum standards of behaviour and sets out the terms upon which people can stay on the land, for how long and matters like that? Why have you not done that? Why is that unreasonable?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, Ipperwash Provincial Park remains occupied after 11 years. That is the end result of the approach brought by this particular former government. If there is some kind of written agreement binding the use of that land, I'm not aware of that and neither are the people of Ontario.

But let me tell you what we have done, working together with all of the communities affected by this. Just recently, Minister Ramsay visited the community. We have agreed to put in place a 100-foot buffer zone, now recognized and controlled by the OPP, behind the houses and school that back on to the protested land.

I've also written to Chief MacNaughton. I've secured an agreement from him that he will work hard to eliminate noise and other nuisances that might be occurring on the land in question.
When it comes to the future use of the land, that is the subject of ongoing negotiations at the table. The federal government is present, we are present and, of course, so are the First Nations.

Mr. Tory: This is all very interesting, that you've secured an agreement with the chief. It's the first we've heard of this. He's quoted in the September 6 edition of the Turtle Island News as saying, "The letter never made it to the chiefs." You released it to the press but never sent it to the chiefs. So now we hear there's an agreement with him, and perhaps you might make that agreement available to us and tell us what terms you have with him.

You were quoted in the St. Catharines Standard, on August 31, 2006, as saying that if the protestors stay on the land "in some kind of permanent way, through the winter for example -- that is not acceptable to us."

On the one hand, you had your lawyers in court yesterday saying they can stay there as long as they want and you seem unwilling to require any conditions of them or ask for anything, although we now hear there's some kind of a secret agreement; on the other hand, you said it was unacceptable.
So my question is this: Can you clarify for us exactly what the McGuinty government policy is? Are the protestors allowed to stay as long as they want without conditions, or must they be off the land, as you said previously, by the winter? Which is it?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, 11 years later, Ipperwash Provincial Park remains occupied. It's a provincial park that is not available for use by the people of Ontario.
Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm having a great deal of difficulty hearing the Premier. Order.
Premier.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, we are intent on remaining at the table, together with the representative of the federal government and representatives of the First Nations communities affected by this. The leader of the official opposition knows that this particular issue predates Confederation. It is complex, it is fraught with challenges and it is taking everything all three parties can do by way of bringing to bear a request that we remain peaceful and respectful of one another as we work our way through this very difficult situation. We will continue to be at the table for as long as it takes to ensure that we have a productive dialogue, and a very important objective in all of this, of course, is the future use of that particular piece of property.

The Speaker: New question. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: My second question is also for the Premier. I wonder if you can give us your best estimate of the costs of all aspects involved in the Caledonia matter to date, including policing, land purchase costs, assistance to the affected businesses and residents, lawyers, negotiators, and that is just to name a few of the line items. I expect that as the chief trustee of the taxpayers' money, you will be able to give us some estimate as to how much has been spent on that matter so far.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: With respect to the purchase of Douglas Creek Estates, I can inform the leader of the official opposition and the House that the total paid to the developer was $15.8 million, and there was an additional $4 million for builders who had started to build on the land in question.

Mr. Tory: I will help the Premier, who seems to be woefully ill informed about the finances of the taxpayers. I think by the calculation we can do, without access to all the tens of thousands of public servants you have, that the number would be about $55 million so far, and counting. Policing costs: probably about $30 million to date, and that is before we count in the cost of the new 72-officer detachment in Caledonia; buyout of the land -- your numbers are right as we have it -- about $20.9 million; Jane Stewart's contract, $330,000 without factoring in other staff; millions in costs to Hydro One for property damage and delay of the hydro transmission line; unknown costs -- perhaps millions; we can't even count -- related to the transfer of 250 acres of lands. That puts us at about $55 million so far.
Can you either confirm that number as the total cost so far or tell us what the right number is? You should be able to do that if you're looking after the taxpayers' money.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To listen to our colleague, you would think that there must be some neat, tidy and possibly elegant solution to the challenges that face all of us at Caledonia. You would think that. But he has yet, at any place or any time, to put forward any substantive proposal that would tell us exactly what he would have us do in these challenging circumstances.

So what we have done is work hand in hand with the federal government -- and it may be that Mr. Tory has contacted the Prime Minister and registered his extreme displeasure with this peaceful approach brought by our two governments; maybe he has done that but he hasn't owned up to it in this House -- and we will continue to work hand in hand with the federal government, together with the First Nations, to resolve this in a manner that is peaceful.

Mr. Tory: Again a very interesting answer not responsive to the question, and I'll tell you what I have said. I have said it's important that we respect the rule of law and that we don't sit at negotiating tables with people who are not prepared to do that. I have said that, and if that puts me at odds with you and the Prime Minister of Canada, so be it.

Mr. McGuinty's government has bought out Henco. You've provided assistance to business, you've transferred 250 acres of agricultural land to the First Nations people, but there's one group of people for whom you have done nothing. It's a very small group, but they are innocent victims of this whole sorry affair. I'm talking about the homeowners whose properties are adjacent to the disputed lands, who have been pleading with your government for some consideration of their circumstances where their property values have plummeted and their houses, in many cases, are not saleable. Are you going to reconsider the request they have made so that you would inject some measure of fairness into a process for people who have found themselves caught in the middle of this situation? Will you reconsider and show some consideration to these people?

1420

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: You wouldn't blame the people of Ontario for being confused. At first, Mr. Tory was saying the problem is we're spending too much money, and now he is saying the problem actually is that we're not spending enough time to talk to more people so that we might give them more money. We're a little confused as to where he stands on this, but perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, that is to be expected.

We are proud of the way that we have managed this difficult, complex situation. The leader of the official opposition sees things differently. He is in disagreement with myself and with Prime Minister Harper and the peaceful resolution that we are seeking to arrive at.

To be specific about his question, we are in fact dealing, on an ongoing basis, with those particular homeowners. We've been dealing with the businesses. We've been dealing with the community at large. We've dealt with the developer. We are ensuring that people are intact in terms of their financial circumstances. We're doing whatever we can to maintain peace in this community.