Hansard Transcript 1987-Nov-19 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Sterling: As I was beginning my remarks yesterday afternoon on the whole matter of free trade, I thought it was very important to recommend to the members of this Legislature an article written in the Globe and Mail this morning on page A7. It is called, “In Praise of the Free Trade Pact: Peterson Bid to Sink Deal Misguided.”

If one reads through the various six points the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has put forward and reads a very noted economist’s view of those six points, Dr. John Crispo, no doubt one will come to a logical conclusion that the Premier is misguided in opposing this free trade deal.

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: The Liberal members must have had a good night of sleep because they seem to be quite boisterous this morning.

I would like to make a few remarks with regard to our market supply system. As the members know, the market supply system is extremely important to our agricultural industry, particularly in eastern Ontario because we rely so heavily on the dairy industry, which is a great benefactor of that particular situation.

In March 1987, John Wise, the federal Minister of Agriculture, stood in the House of Commons and said that the market supply system would not be sacrificed in this free trade deal. Yet when we went through the election campaign which culminated on September 10, there were a number of people who were out there on the government side saying: “If a free trade deal is made, you are going to lose 50 per cent of your quota. You are going to lose your livelihood.” Now we find, of course, after the free trade deal has been made, that no such thing has occurred. In fact, some of the dairy industry think they are in a better position than they ever were before a free trade deal and the negotiations took place.

I think that was evidenced the other day when I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) about that specific topic. The only reply he could give me in answer to a question as to whether he supported the free trade deal was, “Well, we will have to wait and see what the final wording of the document is.” That is a pretty weak response in terms of the positions he and his party were taking during the election campaign when they were literally frightening our dairy farmers into a position of supporting that party. The next time through, they are not going to forget the positions they took and how much that whole campaign was a fraud, as the New Democratic Party has pointed out.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Let us hear the evidence that the dairy industry favours it.

Mr. Sterling: The member for Kitchener wants the evidence that the dairy farmers are supporting it. I will tell him what the evidence is. The evidence was in the reply of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. He would have stood up and banged away as he did in the campaign if he had the dairy farmers on his back about the deal, and they are not on his back. They know that yoghurt and ice cream are going on the protected list and that they are going to have a larger market than they ever had before.

As well, I want the members to know that during the campaign I wrote to every dairy farmer in my riding pointing out that the Progressive Conservative Party would not support a deal which did not protect our market supply system.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Then you reversed yourself after the campaign. Now you are supporting that kind of a deal. Shame.

Mr. Sterling: The member for Kitchener is making little sense this morning.

We have retained a constant position. The market supply system, as I mentioned before, was not put in jeopardy by the deal that was cut by the federal government. In fact, it was protected. Our party said we would not support a deal that did put the market supply system in jeopardy, and so our position remains constant.

I would like to speak just briefly about this government’s record with regard to dealing with a number of school boards in the Ottawa-Carleton and Prescott-Russell area which have been under study. I am referring to two reports, the one that was given to us yesterday in the Legislature, a report of the Prescott-Russell School Board Study Committee -- you will be very familiar with it as you represent that area, Mr. Deputy Speaker -- and also the report of the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language Education Advisory Committee that was undertaken by a former colleague of ours, Albert Roy.

If we look at the two main recommendations in these two reports dealing with the structure of boards, in the Roy report, the committee recommends that the Ottawa-Carleton French-language school board have two sections, a Roman Catholic section and a public section. That is the basis of the structure on which Mr. Roy and his colleagues set up their report.

It is interesting to note that the Prescott-Russell School Board Study Committee also establishes a joint board. The new structures include a combined French-language board of education, an English-language public board of education and an English-language Catholic board of education. So they are also recommending a joint board, a joint Roman Catholic board with a public board.

Members may remember that during the third reading of Bill 30 I put forward an amendment to Bill 30 to permit various sections or parts of this province to bring together both the Roman Catholic section and the public section, particularly in areas which were sparsely populated, so that they could work together to provide education for both of the school systems. That suggestion was turned down by this government.

Before we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on reports like these two reports, I would like the government to decide whether it is going to allow joint boards or not. What we have seen is the government take a position against that kind of structure and then send out committees to look at structures of school boards and not eliminate that option. Either eliminate the option or embrace the option.

1010

Heretofore, this government has said you cannot have an amalgamated or joint school board; so if that is an option, I think the government should make a policy statement in that regard. Then boards that are going to be created, not only in the Prescott-Russell and Ottawa-Carleton areas but in other parts of this province, could benefit from joint boards if both boards wanted, voluntarily, to enter into such an arrangement.

I wanted to point that out because we now have two reports which may have to be shelved, junked, thrown out or trashed after a lot of hard work by some very dedicated individuals, because the very keystone of the report is a structure which has not been accepted by this government before.

I would like to mention two environmental matters. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would know, coming from an area close to Ottawa-Carleton, that we have had some difficulty between our region and the Ministry of the Environment. I have a particular concern about a dump which is located in West Carleton, where we have a situation of contamination of the water supply of many of the residents whom I represent -- they are on well water and septic tanks in that area. I am referring to a dump which is called the Rump Dump, if you can imagine. At any rate, the leachate from this dump site is causing a ground water contamination problem.

The owner of that site is the Newill Corp. They have agreed to install a water system for the residents in that area and they have agreed to put out over $1 million to do that. Part of the deal with regard to this dump site owner is that the treated leachate from the dump goes into the regional sewer system.

The region says it has had previous experience with the Ministry of the Environment, particularly dealing with the oil at the Lees Avenue area. They have said that no matter what the region seems to try to do to clean up an environmental problem -- and they spent over $5 million trying to clean up the Lees Avenue problem -- the Ministry of the Environment comes down and starts to lay charges and prosecute the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, even though it is not responsible for the creation of the environmental problem.

We now have a Mexican standoff, if that is what you want to call it, between the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the Ministry of the Environment. I will quote from Andy Haydon’s letter to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), which was written on July 27, 1987.

“If the region accepts the contaminated ground water under any of the above conditions and, subsequently, environmentally hazardous materials are discovered leaching from the landfill site” -- let us take polychlorinated biphenyls, for example -- “they would be in our sewer system, in our plant and, ultimately, in the Ottawa River. Your enforcement branch would prosecute the region. It is this concern that forbids us from accepting the contaminated ground water.”

What we have is the owner of this dump, a dump which is sorely needed in order for us to handle the waste we are producing in the Ottawa-Carleton area, saying: “I will take care of the local residents’ ground water. I will supply them with regional water by investing over $1 million in order to do this, but you have to take the leachate that comes out of the dump.” That leachate must go somewhere anyway, and it is probably best treated in the regional sewer system, because it would have the experience and expertise to handle that.

Now the region is saying: “Because the Ministry of the Environment does not like to solve problems with us but likes to create a conflict and get us into court and act like the big hitters and they are for environment, rather than solving the problem; we are demanding that the Ministry of the Environment assume responsibility under any defaulted conditions incurred by the region as a result of either the failure of the company to undertake what it has or if an environmental standard cannot be leachproof.”

I do not think the Minister of the Environment can agree to that. Here we have a situation of hostility built between the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the Ministry of the Environment. I have 70 residents on Alexander Crescent near the village of Stittsville who are subject to bad water. We have a Mexican standoff. We have a situation where one level of government cannot work with another level of government, and I think it is a sorry day.

I also point out that I wrote to the minister on September 3 of this year, during the election campaign, because this issue was raised with me. I asked him to set up a meeting with Mr. Haydon, the regional chairman, but I have not yet received a reply to that letter written two and a half months ago. That is what the Minister of the Environment cares about 70 people who are at risk with regard to ground water in their area, a problem that could be solved if this Minister of the Environment starts to become co-operative in trying to resolve problems, rather than being more interested in penalties and hitting down people who have tried to resolve environmental problems.

I would like to bring forward another environ-mental problem. I wish the Minister of the Environment was here today to hear my remarks.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: What do you think he is up to?

Mr. Sterling: Maybe he is making a call to Andy Haydon. I hope that is what he is doing because that would be very helpful.

Last May or June, I asked the Minister of the Environment a question as to his interest in the whole environmental problem with radon gas. At that time, he promised in this Legislature to look into it. I had a constituency interest in it because I have a company in my riding which has an interest in manufacturing detection devices for radon gas. It is another one of the many high-tech companies in my area and, I might add, they could not be alive if they did not have the United States market to sell their particular devices to. I asked the minister if he was taking any action with regard to radon gas.

I am told that a few days ago the TV program Marketplace had a significant program on this problem. It is a great problem in some parts of Manitoba. It is also a fairly significant problem in some places in Ontario; yet the government continues to sit on the problem without telling people that there is a problem.

We have a problem in the Ottawa-Carleton area because we basically sit on a very large plateau of uranium and radioactive material. The United States is 20 to 30 years ahead of us with regard to this environmental concern. Each year the Environmental Protection Agency undertakes tests in 10 different states to discover whether there is a general, overall problem in various parts of various states. For instance, there is a very significant problem in the state of New Jersey.

1020

But the point of the Marketplace program, and the point I guess I was trying to put forward to the Minister of the Environment last spring, was that we can radon-proof or we can keep the radon gas out of a house relatively inexpensively if we do it at the time of building. Building codes and development laws are under the jurisdiction of the province, yet in response to my question -- the minister was kind enough to send me a letter some month or two later -- he really just shoved it over to the Ministry of Labour, said the Ministry of Labour is doing something about it and washed his hands of the whole problem with regard to radon gas.

This is a problem that many people would shrug off and say, “What are you talking about, Sterling? It is not a big deal,” etc., but we just do not know how big the problem is. The fact of the matter is, there is an estimate that in Canada about 500 people are now dying of lung cancer because of the radioactive material that is located in houses.

It is particularly of importance in rural areas where people have sump pumps, because that is the primary point of leakage into a house. Therefore, I would like the Minister of the Environment to look at this problem in a serious way and at least locate the areas where there is a higher danger of this kind of environmental hazard. I would also like him to consider amending the law and amending the Ontario Building Code to require builders to radon-proof houses in those areas where there is a higher risk. I am going to continue to raise that matter over the next little while until this government decides to do something in a positive sense about that.

The members of the Legislature have been extremely patient in listening to the many concerns that I have, not only with regard to my riding of Carleton but also with regard to other provincial issues in the Ottawa-Carleton area. As the only member of the opposition from the area, I feel I have an obligation to speak in opposition and in opposing policies which affect not only my riding but all ridings of Ottawa-Carleton. Therefore, I hope members understand the length and breadth of my remarks in that regard.

Mr. Tatham: I would like to thank the member for Carleton for his comments about banning smoking. However, I would like to point out that a number of farmers in our area have economic problems. The infrastructure around those farmers is also a problem. I would like to suggest that we have to take some action to help these people, and I would like to see what comments could come from the member for Carleton to assist these farmers.

Concerning the other comment about this matter of leachate, we also had a problem in our county. Somebody had allowed a dump to be established many years ago. A number of households had some --

Mr. Black: Don’t bring up the past.

Mr. Tatham: I am sorry. No, this is true. The leachate ran down into the wells and the rest of the municipalities in our county, combined with the ministry, had to put up some money to assist these people. I would like to suggest that by working together we can overcome some of these problems, but the municipalities themselves have to co-operate with the ministry.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I am going to touch on just one of the many things the member for Carleton mentioned, and it is the one that he asked me to touch on last night. Unfortunately, considering that he represents the city of Kanata in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is woefully inadequate in his understanding of countervail, why we want it and why the Conservative caucus, up until October of this year, wanted a binding dispute settlement mechanism.

Countervail is an American-created impediment to world free trade. They forced it on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade by sheer brute force of their power and they have used it on hundreds of occasions against the rest of the world. Between 1982 and 1985, $6.5 billion annually in Canadian exports to the United States have been affected by countervail. That represents nine per cent of our exports to the United States and 170,000 jobs that the member for Carleton does not care about.

Only once in history has countervail been used against the US. It was used by the Ontario corn producers in 1987, and the Ontario corn producers have now priced themselves out of the market and perhaps are sorry they took countervail action against the US.

My conclusion, from listening very carefully to the member for Carleton, is that he is a long way from joining the 19 per cent of the Canadian public who understand free trade.

Mr. Dietsch: I listened with great interest and very intently to the member for Carleton’s presentation over the last two days. I find it interesting that he does not share quite as intently the views of his colleague the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), who was so concerned he interrupted me on a point of order, which I found extremely interesting and, to say the least, very challenging.

I found it quite interesting that the member for Carleton did not address very clearly his party’s position on the grape and wine industry. It is an extremely important point to me and it certainly should be to the member for Carleton, recognizing that there could be further aspirations from him in the future. I feel he should address very clearly where his party stands on those areas.

I also found it quite interesting that the member, when he was addressing the environment issues, failed to put forward to the House how his party for several years had legislation on the shelf that collected dust in a rather unique fashion. It was not until the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) became the Minister of the Environment that anything was done for Ontario in an environmental way.

Mr. McGuinty: I would comment very briefly on the remarks made by my neighbour the member for Carleton with regard to an article in today’s Globe and Mail. I commend that to everyone. It was written by Hugh Segal, who is hardly a disinterested observer; he is an adviser to Mr. Mulroney. He writes very well, because I had him in class years ago and he is a friend of mine.

Looking at that article, I think it is typical of many articles written by those who endorse free trade. Their argument always is to the effect that this is an economic matter. The assumption is always that free trade is all of one piece: economic. In fact, the free trade issue is largely a matter of culture; it is all about culture. It is a matter of the heart rather than the head. Love of country is an emotion, and so is greed.

But the questions which have been put to the Canadian people -- and we hear from time to time that 49 per cent apparently are in favour -- are misleading and the poll results are misleading. The operative word in the question “Are you in favour of free trade?” is “free” -- “free” as used in the phrase “free lunch” or “free speech.”

I think the responses clearly could be anticipated. What if we ask the Canadian people questions of the kind they have not yet been asked? “Are you in favour of giving up those things that have developed as reflections of Canadian culture and identity?” These are things that enter the daily lives of most Canadians: health insurance, unemployment benefits, legal subsidies, magazines and periodicals --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry; the member’s time is up.

Mr. McGuinty: If these questions were put to the Canadian people --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There are 45 seconds left. Would another member like to speak? The member for Sudbury.

1030

Mr. Campbell: I congratulate the member across the way who is concerned about radon gas, which concern I share. Because of my time limit, I will not go into all the other details, but I wonder if he is aware that past government policy has been to arrange for radon and radon progeny testing in the homes of uranium miners in Elliot Lake, Blind River and Bancroft. If he is aware of that program, perhaps it could be extended to the residents of his area who may also be suffering.

Also, Elliot Lake, Faraday township, Bancroft and Hyndman township are designated uranium mining areas and radon standards are incorporated in the Ontario Building Code. My understanding is that it can be more widely spread, where this problem exists. The member is quite correct and I congratulate his knowledge of that fact.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member for Carleton like to respond?

Mr. Sterling: I can hardly not respond. I really shook the trees. I would like to reply as briefly as I can to the members who spoke.

First, to the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham), with regard to the tobacco industry and the infrastructure of the communities that rely on the tobacco industry, I have suggested several times to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) that he increase the price of cigarettes by 15 cents per package. That would generate an additional $100 million to $120 million in revenues to this government so that it could properly take care of our farmers, enrich the existing joint federal-provincial grant and actually help the infrastructure of the communities to meet the problems with regard to the loss of this industry. We cannot condone tobacco, even though it causes a considerable upset to some communities.

With regard to the funding dispute mechanism, all I can say to the member for Kitchener is that I read the actual agreement, as I said in my speech, as saying it is the decision of the panel. They refer to countervail and antidumping being binding on the parties and their investigating authorities and, therefore, we do have a binding mechanism and Dr. Crispo argues that in his particular matter.

I remind the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) of my interest and the interest in our government. When I was the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, a minister in the Davis government, I was the fellow who brought in the Niagara Escarpment plan, which was lauded by the environmentalists. We do have a record, even in the member’s own area, with regard to our concerns and we did take some action.

I did not know the facts which the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) brought forward to me and I appreciate the knowledge with regard to that. I think it is a larger problem and that experience should be used in other parts of the province.

Mr. Chiarelli: Let me begin by saying it is indeed an honour and a privilege to be able to serve in this House and a special honour and privilege to be able to serve the good people of Ottawa West. I am mindful that this privilege is one that must be earned every day, and it is a responsibility I intend to honour to the fullest of my abilities.

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, new members are keen to observe and learn the ways of the Legislature as quickly as possible. Speaking for myself and, I believe, for many of my colleagues, we have quickly observed that the Speaker and Deputy Speaker chair this assembly not only with good judgement and tact but also with a good cheer that is both pleasant and contagious. We thank you for that introduction.

I also want to say on behalf of myself, and I believe I am speaking for my colleagues, that we appreciate the informative and professional introduction that the Clerk and the officers in his office have provided to us. It has made the transition to this place a lot easier for us.

I note that the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) is leaving. Perhaps he will just stay and hear my comment. In terms of learning experiences, I just mentioned that we appreciated the learning experience from the Clerk and his staff. I think the new members here today had a learning experience in terms of how we can best use the time of this House and how best to run it over a two-day period. I appreciate the lesson he has given us in the last couple of days. I thank him very much.

I am here at Queen’s Park in the company of seven other good representatives from the Ottawa-Carleton area. I am proud to be among their number. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Grandmaître) on his reappointment to the cabinet and special congratulations to the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Patten) on his appointment to the cabinet.

I also want to congratulate you, sir, on your appointment as Deputy Speaker, coming partially from the Ottawa-Carleton municipality. It has been many years since representatives of the Ottawa area have been able to take political issues and provincial affairs out from under the shadow of the Peace Tower. I believe the people we have from the Ottawa-Carleton area in this assembly as a result of the recent election, and I include the member for Carleton, are going to do some good for the Ottawa-Carleton area and I am very pleased to be among their number.

Before I comment on a number of very positive initiatives in the speech from the throne and how these will benefit my constituents, I would like to share with my colleagues some thoughts about my riding and some principles I believe in.

First, let me say that the greatest resource, the greatest pride and the greatest strength we have in Ottawa West is our people. The citizens I have the privilege and honour to serve include the second-highest number of senior citizens per capita of any constituency in Canada. These elderly represent a feisty, active, self-reliant and proud segment of our community. A minority of them, as we know, require the special help afforded by our social assistance infrastructure, yet even these seniors accept their adversity with courage, dignity and understanding. These seniors hold a special place in our hearts and remain one of my riding’s most cherished possessions and assets.

Another human resource we are blessed with in Ottawa West is a highly educated and trained community in step with today’s and tomorrow’s technology, a human resource envied by many a community, if not by many a country, a human resource of which Ottawa and Ontario can rightly be proud.

We are also very fortunate in Ottawa West to have one of the most active community networks in eastern Ontario and perhaps in the province. We are proud of our three community-based newspapers, our numerous local service associations and charitable organizations. We are especially proud of the Pinecrest-Queensway Community Resource Centre, the Olde Forge Community Resource Centre and the Carlington Community Resource Centre. These facilities, which are almost becoming institutions in Ottawa West, are characterized by concern, compassion and constructive caring for large segments of my riding, which includes five major assisted-housing neighbourhoods.

In addition, at a time when our country is living through renewed constitutional growth and new cultural and ethnic diversity, the people of Ottawa West take pride in fully participating in this renewal.

1040

I mentioned earlier that I would speak of some principles. I believe in them, and I believe many others in this House from all parties believe in them. I also am of the opinion that they are embodied in the throne speech. I believe they are worth repeating, in the words of a well-known social democrat:

“It means we campaign to win on the merits of our causes and to break new frontiers in education, housing, social services, health care and social justice.

“It means we speak for those who work for a living, white-collar and blue-collar, young professionals, men and women in small businesses trying to prove their worth and earn a living.

“It means we speak for minorities who have not yet entered the mainstream.

“And it means we speak for women indignant that we had refused to etch into our governmental commandments a simple rule, ‘Thou shalt not sin against equality,’ a commandment so obvious it can be stated in two simple words: equality now.”

À titre de libéraux, nous croyons qu’une société aussi bénie que la nôtre devrait pouvoir apporter de l’assistance à ceux qui en ont besoin.

I believe first and foremost that the throne speech is based on a sound political philosophy embodied in the principles I just mentioned. Second, the throne speech reflects that Liberals will do what they said they would do. Third, it shows that this government continues to be an open government with progressive and activist policies.

I would like to refer to three of the throne speech initiatives which are of particular importance to me because they are of special significance to my constituents.

First, in building competitive strengths in the area of high technology, the government has put forward proposals for co-operative action leading to the establishment of a network of centres of excellence and the consideration of projects to receive funding from the Premier’s technology fund.

We in the Ottawa-Carleton region are very pleased that a centre of excellence has been established at the University of Ottawa and that current high-technology proposals are being considered by the Premier’s fund. I am looking forward to some of these being successful and helping the technology industry in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

I am pleased to bring to the attention of my many new colleagues and the new members of this House that the Ottawa-Carleton region remains one of the pre-eminent high-technology locations in North America and will fully participate in the government’s initiatives. Our region is most fortunate to be the home for head offices or significant operations of many corporate leaders in the field of information technology.

The second throne speech initiative of special interest to the people of Ottawa West is that in the midst of an ageing population and rapid increases in the cost of health care delivery this government is developing new strategies for healthy living, including expanding the network of support services for seniors and the disabled and improved access for these groups to transportation.

I am proud to be able to bring to the attention of my colleagues the seniors’ activity centre being established in my riding by seniors for seniors. To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first senior drop-in or activity centre established within the premises of a major regional, urban shopping centre, thus providing unique opportunities for the elderly. I believe this centre will become a model for many such centres in the future. I have invited the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) to come to Ottawa West. I believe she will, and I am certain she will bring back some very good ideas which can be of help to her ministry and other members of this House.

Third, in the area of environmental protection, the people of Ottawa West are pleased that this government is committed to accelerating efforts to clean up the province’s beaches.

My colleagues may be interested in knowing that although my riding is an urban riding, the Ottawa River forms the entire northern boundary for a distance of approximately five miles. The waterfront is essentially all open space, publicly owned and fully accessible to the public. In fact, two public beaches, Britannia Beach and Westboro Beach, are within my riding. Unfortunately, excessive pollution counts all too frequently close these beaches.

It is useful at this point to reflect historically on the Ottawa River, one of the great waterways of North America. It was the primary highway for the explorers, voyageurs and fur traders, many of whom camped on its shores in what is now Ottawa West. It is also useful to reflect on the very special day we observed last week on November 11. To the nation builders who risked the unknown to create this country, and to the honourable and courageous men and women who defended its freedom, we owe an obligation to preserve this country and its richness for future generations.

I believe the people of Ottawa West appreciate the environmental protection measures taken by this government and its renewed commitment to clean up our beaches so that future generations may enjoy our national treasures.

I referred to merely three initiatives from the throne speech of special interest to the people of my riding, but I know there are many more. I am honoured to be able to look forward to participating in the legislative process in bringing into reality so many new and positive developments.

In conclusion, I say to my colleagues that I am here to satisfy one priority; that is to serve the people who elected me, as forthrightly and as honestly as I can. I therefore want to share with you a number of specific needs that I believe significant groups within my constituency would like this government to satisfy in the foreseeable future, not because they would be nice to have but rather because they know there is a crying need.

First, in the area of education we require a reorganization of the Ottawa-Carleton school boards. We now have the Ottawa Board of Education, the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board, the Carleton Board of Education, the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board, and we are in the process of establishing a new francophone board in our region.

The people, the voters of Ottawa West, sent me to Queen’s Park with a message which I would like to convey to this government and to the Minister of Education, and that is to streamline our system of education in the Ottawa-Carleton area and make it relevant for the 1990s.

In the second area of education, there are large numbers of thoughtful people in my riding who want this government to start a process of rationalizing the place of alternative schools with the publicly funded system.

In the area of transportation, I am very pleased that the minister has joined us. The people of Ottawa West are extremely happy that this government, in the course of the election and through renewal in the speech from the throne, has announced the start of four-lane Highway 416, but the message my constituents want me to bring to the government and to the minister is that they put as high a priority on the four-lane link from Highway 401 into the Queensway as they do with the link from Century Road into the Queensway. I would urge the government to explore whatever means and ways are possible to look into this, and I am sure we will have many discussions in the future on it. It is a priority of my constituents, and I do want to bring that to your attention.

In the area of housing, first of all, the five neighbourhoods or areas of assisted housing owned by the Ontario Housing Corp. in my riding require immediate and substantive increases in the allocation of capital funds to upgrade and renovate these units. I was proud to be able to canvass virtually every door in these assisted housing neighbourhoods, but I was not proud of the extent to which the Ontario Housing Corp. has permitted the physical deterioration of this housing stock to take place. I would urge upon this government and the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) to look at ways and means of providing needed capital for this housing stock which is owned and operated by the province.

1050

Second, again on the question of housing, there is a substantial number of OHC senior citizen high-rise units located in my riding. There is an urgent and pressing need for this government to explore ways and means of providing 24-hour security in these buildings. This action is necessary to enhance the quality of life of our seniors by eliminating fear and providing real and needed protection.

From 1980 to 1985, I had the honour and privilege of serving on the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Housing Authority, and I chaired the security committee at that time. I made a promise to myself and to those seniors I was dealing with at that time that if I was ever in a position to have any influence on this particular question, I would do whatever I could. I do believe it is a real priority for seniors who live in high-rises, and I do believe the ministry should look at ways and means of providing this type of security for our seniors.

In the area of health care, since many people in Ontario cannot afford needed psychological services, I would urge this government to explore ways and means of creating several pilot projects to provide Ontario health insurance plan coverage for the services of psychologists in defined circumstances.

Also in the area of health care, my constituents and the people of Ottawa appreciate the efforts the government and the Ministry of Health have made in the last two years. They had a lot of making up to do, but my constituents urge this government to take whatever additional steps are necessary in the allocation of its capital transfer payments to place a higher priority on the provision of chronic care and psychiatric beds in the Ottawa region.

Ottawa West is a diverse riding. From Island Park Drive to Penny Drive, from McKellar Heights to Michele Heights, it is a great place to live. C’est un bon endroit pour élever nos familles. But it has some needs that have been begging for solutions. I am satisfied that the actions of this government over the past two years and the initiatives that have been undertaken in the speech from the throne will improve the quality of life of all the constituents of Ottawa West.

I look forward to continuing to work on their behalf so that further benefits may be realized.

Mr. Philip: The member caught my interest by his comments on the Ottawa Housing Authority. Since he was on the board of that housing authority, I would like to ask his position on some crucial issues which the tenants in his riding have brought to the attention of members of this House over the years.

The first one he mentions is the security system. I am wondering if the member agrees with the position taken over the years by tenants living in those housing projects that they should have, or be able to set up, a nonprofit security company and have some supervision and direct input into the security in their own buildings.

Second, I wonder if he has been concerned in the past at the allegations that the tenant representative has in the past been rejected because of her political affiliations to one party, namely, the New Democratic Party. What kinds of steps is the member prepared to take to ensure that tenants are represented on the housing authority board in a nonpartisan way and that the tenants can decide who represents their interests, not the Minister of Housing, who may reject them because they belong to the wrong political party?

Third, in his riding, and indeed in his city, he will be aware that there are many poor people and single people who do not qualify for rent-geared-to-income housing because they do not fit the criteria of either being permanently disabled physically or psychologically, or indeed they do not fit the criteria of being a senior. I am wondering what his position is regarding acceptance into the housing authority for geared-to-income housing in this province of people who simply qualify not because they are members of a family or because of their marital status, their age or a disability, but simply because they happen to be poor. I wonder if the member would answer those three questions on the housing issues.

Mr. Chiarelli: First of all, I want to say that I appreciate, as I think the residents and constituents of Ottawa West appreciate, the many excellent thrusts that have been taken by this government over the last two years. I think a lot of good things have been done in the housing area by the previous administration. That is not to say that improvements cannot be made.

In terms of improvements, I would support the idea of the tenants getting involved in providing their own security. I think that as much involvement as we can create within these communities will be an asset. I have found that in my riding the strongest and most successful communities in assisted-housing areas are those where there has been strong community involvement by the people in the communities. I think the nonprofit security system, if it can be properly implemented, could have much merit.

With respect to tenants’ representatives in the Ottawa area, I would say from my experience of five years in the Ottawa Housing Authority and subsequently the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Housing Authority that the tenants have had tremendous input into what was happening. I mentioned the security committee, on which I sat. It was very active; there were many tenants who participated, and some of the tenants’ leaders participated fully and appreciated the participation.

With respect to the single, independent poor person who requires housing, I agree with the member opposite. I think our Ministry of Housing should try to create circumstances where this can happen and satisfy this particular need.

Mr. Morin-Strom: First, I would like to congratulate you, Deputy Speaker, on your election to office and wish you well in the term we are just starting at this point. I am sure it is going to be an interesting session, and I hope we can accomplish a lot as we represent the people of this province.

I would also like to welcome all the members who have returned to the Legislature and the many new members we see with us here today. I think it is going to be a session in which we can make a very valuable contribution to our province, and I look forward to working with all the members in the House in attempting to do that.

I would also like to thank the people of Sault Ste. Marie for the faith and trust they have placed in me in giving me the opportunity to represent them for a second term. I very much appreciated the honour of representing them since 1985, and I hope we can continue to work together and to work hard to represent the interests of my constituency as we collectively try to represent the issues and concerns of all the people of Ontario.

In Sault Ste. Marie we have been able to accomplish some good things in the past two years. The Sault faced some very difficult times during my first term in office. A major decision by the major employer in Sault Ste. Marie, Algoma Steel Corp., during the middle of that term in 1986, was an announcement of its plans to lay off 1,500 employees, downsize its operations, a decision that would have had a severe impact on our community.

The provincial government responded to that situation. We certainly addressed it as a very important issue facing our community. We quickly held an emergency debate on the issue after the announcement by the corporation. We then insisted on hearings that were held by the standing committee on resources development, and members from all three parties participated, coming up to Sault Ste. Marie and to the community of Wawa, which was also threatened, and put together a proposal for an action plan from the province to assist our community.

Within two to three months of the announcement by the corporation -- I think it was within two months -- that proposal was put forward with all-party support of the committee. Shortly following that, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) made a number of important announcements of economic stimulus for Sault Ste. Marie, which included the start of a relocation program of government positions into northern Ontario, an initiative which our community welcomed.

1100

While the construction is just about to get under way on a major new office facility, we look forward to the jobs that are coming in the Ontario Lottery Corp. and particularly in the forestry section. Basically, the whole forestry section of the Ministry of Natural Resources is being relocated at Sault Ste. Marie, something that makes important sense in terms of putting control of a very important industry and resource primarily in the northern part of our province in the hands of the people who live in the north.

While we have accomplished good things and made an important contribution to our community over the last several years, there is still much to be done for Sault Ste. Marie. We have to continue the efforts in other areas of endeavour. We cannot live solely on government jobs. The commitment to bring some 350 government jobs comes nowhere near to replacing the kinds of jobs we have lost in our most important industry.

During the recession in the early 1980s, Sault Ste. Marie lost nearly 4,000 jobs in one company alone, Algoma Steel Corp. The company has had some success in the last year with a pickup in the economy. Its part of the business is servicing primarily the oil and gas industry and heavy construction, both of which are in much better shape this year than they were in 1986. The company’s employment levels have improved since the time of the company’s announcement in mid-1986. Rather than the loss of 1,500 jobs, we have probably gained 500 jobs or so at the company. So we have been fortunate in that respect.

We have to renew our efforts to bring in other industry to diversify our economy. That is really the source of wealth in northern Ontario. It is the industry we have there. It is what we do with the resources we have. We have tremendous physical resources and we have tremendous people resources. We have the opportunity to use those, but to do that, we not only have to ship them out in bulk, in massive quantities, as we often do and have done over the history of the north, but we also have to renew war efforts to put more processing of our resources into northern Ontario. We have to put more value-added into those resources, producing finished products whenever we can develop appropriate industries.

I hope this government will look at northern development in terms of stimulating the industrial sector which will go along with the resource sector we have in the north. We have the opportunity to do that. We need upfront assistance, though, from the government, particularly in areas like research and development and in educational facilities. I am a firm believer that modern competitive industries come from having the technology and the knowledge that is needed to be in the forefront. To do that, we need to have that investment, that knowledge base built up where the resource sector is, in northern Ontario. We have to have the people with the ideas and the knowhow to be able to develop those industries.

We have not been well served by the province’s technology fund. Its commitment to spend $1 billion over the next 10 years has been primarily a commitment to southern Ontario, to high-tech industry, not a commitment to support the very important resource sector and the associated manufacturing that should be going with that sector. We have never had a commitment from this province to a fair share of university funding in northern Ontario. I hope the new member for Fort William (Mrs. McLeod), the new Minister of Colleges and Universities, will look very closely at what percentage of the university and college budget is going to northern Ontario and will reflect on the fact that we have never had a major university in northern Ontario.

The levels of funding for even our two larger universities, Lakehead and Laurentian, are nowhere approaching any of eight or nine major schools in southern Ontario. You could take the total university funding for all the institutions in northern Ontario and they would not be close to any single major institutions in the south. Those northern schools, Laurentian and Lakehead, get an annual funding base of somewhere between $20 million and $30 million a year. Much smaller schools like Algoma College in Sault Ste. Marie or Nipissing in North Bay have budgets under $3 million a year, a minuscule fraction.

Meanwhile, major institutions like Queen’s are in the order of $90 million to $100 million in funding. The University of Waterloo is something like $120 million in funding. The amounts going to those institutions are what make them major universities, able to offer graduate programs competitive on the world scene. The schools in northern Ontario just do not have the resources to be able to do that and that is an area I hope this government will start to address in this term of office.

There is no substitute for an industrial strategy in northern Ontario and certainly free trade is not a substitute for that. I had the opportunity last month, in late October, to visit Sweden and Norway. I was there for two weeks and had the opportunity to meet with a number of government representatives, primarily in Stockholm and Oslo but also in some other communities.

The difference in attitude towards the northern portions of their countries compared to our attitude towards northern Ontario is quite remarkable. They really do work in a co-operative fashion and give a high priority to the concerns and interests of working people in those countries. They are ensuring that they are in the forefront in terms of competitiveness in world markets in the fields of manufacturing and engineering.

Sweden is a country very similar in size to Ontario, is similar geographically, is similar in terms of resource base and is very close in terms of population as well, but it has done much more in terms of maintaining a healthy economy in its northern areas and in developing a high-tech industrial base, strong universities and new technologies that are assisting it to provide much higher levels of employment than we do in Ontario.

While Ontario is having good times overall with an unemployment rate right now of, I understand, under six per cent, in northern Ontario the rate is approximately double that. We still have far too many unemployed in the north. It was rather remarkable to see the comparison in those countries that have had social democratic governments for such a long time. In the month of September, Sweden had an unemployment rate of 1.9 per cent. The country of Norway has an unemployment rate right now of approximately 1.4 per cent. These countries have always made it a high priority to maintain full employment policies. They have put a priority on putting people to work.

They have looked at restructuring industry. They have been more successful and more extensive in terms of restructuring industry. The workers are willing to do that as well because they know jobs are available. They are constantly changing from outmoded, uncompetitive industries to the forefront of new technology where they know they can sell their products and compete on a world scale.

They have ensured that people have the retraining programs that are necessary so that rather than going on unemployment, having to go on welfare and facing poverty when they lose their jobs, as they do in many communities here in Ontario, people are immediately given an opportunity for retraining programs. With the kinds of job demands in those countries, the people know that if they go through a retraining program, at which they are maintained at a very healthy level of income, they then have the opportunity to move into more relevant, longer-term jobs that have a real future for them.

In Norway today, there are more than twice as many job vacancies as there are unemployed in the country, so in fact the kind of problem it is facing is not a lack of jobs, not having enough jobs; it is not a factor of having too many unemployed; it is a factor of having too many job vacancies and not having enough people to fill them. So they have the restructuring plans and the retraining programs to try to reorient people and put them into where they are needed.

1110

During this past election campaign, in our community there were many important issues addressed. One of the most important that I would like to address now is the issue of transportation. I am very pleased to have been appointed the critic for northern transportation for our party. I look forward to dealing with the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and with the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) to try to address some of the important transportation issues facing northern Ontario.

I think the most important is the major upgrading and improvements that are needed to our Trans-Canada Highway. It is essential that this highway be viewed as the connecting link that links all of Canada together. We have to have a highway which is modern, which can handle the traffic and which can move goods and people efficiently across northern Ontario connecting with the major centres in southern Ontario, connecting with the western provinces, connecting with the Maritimes and Quebec and connecting with the United States.

The highway today is not a modern Trans-Canada Highway. It is a highway that was built in the late 1950s and it looks like a highway that was built in the late 1950s. It is not up to the kinds of standards that one would expect in a province with the wealth of Ontario.

A major program to four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway has to be committed to by this government. We need it in order to provide economic stimulus for northern Ontario, to provide jobs for northern Ontario in the short term and to provide some of the infrastructure that will enable us to get our goods to markets in a competitive, cost-effective manner.

We also need it for the very important issue of health and safety. The accidents and fatalities on this highway are at much too high a level. We can save lives if we improve Highway 17 and see that we have a proper highway across our northern province.

The minister appears to have been stalling on this issue. He says that the cost is some $2.7 billion. Now, all that was committed in the last budget in new funding for highways in northern Ontario was less than one per cent of that, some $26 million. He may talk about the regular budget that is there, but that regular budget is what is needed just to maintain the highways in the condition they are in. We need a major new commitment to get a major program going on that highway. At the rate of funding that was committed to in that last budget, it would take over 100 years to four-lane the highway across northern Ontario, a totally ridiculous commitment from this province to the north.

It is up to both ministers, the Minister of Northern Development and the Minister of Transportation, to go back and look at what the needs are and to look at the opportunity that is in front of Ontario for a major commitment on this highway. I understand that just yesterday the Ontario Chamber of Commerce endorsed our position, the position of many communities in northern Ontario, that within a 10-year time frame we should have the Trans-Canada Highway four-laned completely across this province from the Manitoba border to the Quebec border. I hope the province will now respond to that, and I am very pleased to hear that the chamber of commerce is on the same side as the New Democratic Party, for a change, on an issue. We will have to see whether we can convince the Liberal Party to get on side with that issue as well.

Relating to this, I have already presented a resolution on this issue to this House -- it will be in Orders and Notices today -- asking, “That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing the importance of the Trans-Canada Highway to our nation and to our province, the government of Ontario should upgrade the Trans-Canada Highway to a modern four-lane system through northern Ontario to the Manitoba border and that the government should immediately commence design and schedule construction to ensure completion across northern Ontario by 1997.”

I have been quite fortunate in the draw for private members’ business, and I am on the first week, next week, with the resolution for private members’ business. It may well be that resolution. Which resolution it is has not been fully decided at this point, but I am throwing that forward as one possible resolution. We would love to have the commitment of all the parties of this province to a reasonable, phased-in approach, a 10-year program to ensure that the Trans-Canada Highway is four lanes right across northern Ontario.

I would like to address just briefly another area of transportation. Transportation links are so important to northern Ontario because of the vast geography that we have in the north and the difficulties we have in communications and in touching the people where the bigger population bases are. The area of air transportation is a vital area and the Ontario government has been spending some time studying the issue of norOntair and whether it should potentially shut down norOntair or divest norOntair of a good part of its business in connecting many of the smaller communities in northern Ontario.

I would just like to reiterate my position that it is essential that connections between the northern communities be maintained and improved. The people of the north have to have links, not only links from Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury and Thunder Bay, from the major five or six centres down to Toronto, but also links with the smaller communities in the north. norOntair provides a very valuable service in linking up the smaller communities with populations of 1,000 to 5,000 with those bigger cities with populations of 50,000 to 100,000 or so.

Those people, particularly in winter months, do not have those connections being provided by the private carriers. Even if norOntair is to give away only its profitable routes, how on earth would that benefit the province, when the province would then have to put even more into subsidizing the unprofitable routes? The profitable routes would be those connections with the bigger centres, and norOntair would just be left with routes between the very smallest centres. norOntair has a comprehensive system of air links now, and it is essential that we maintain and improve those air links.

Another area of importance in transportation -- and certainly transportation is a big part of cost in northern Ontario -- a big time commitment from people in terms of getting from place to place is their time on highways. The issue I want to bring up is the issue of gasoline prices. This became a big issue several years ago and continues to be a very serious irritation to the people of northern Ontario. There is an injustice here when we who have more dependence on transportation and our highways and vehicles for getting around because of the geography have also to pay a penalty in terms of much higher gasoline prices than there are in southern Ontario.

The difference is not solely the cost of getting the gasoline to the north. A lot of the problem is a lack of competitive environment, a lack of fair pricing by the gasoline stations. The independent players have been pushed out of the marketplace. In Sault Ste. Marie, there are no independents left that can price on their own. That happened as of three years ago, and there has been no price competition since that point. There is no such thing as a gasoline price war in Sault Ste. Marie. We have never seen it.

The price structure remains firmly in place. At one point it stayed in place for more than two years with no change at any gas station in the whole city by even a fraction of a cent. Even then, the price structures as they move are being dictated by one of the majors, whether it is Petro-Canada or Imperial Oil, I do not know, but when they move their price up by two cents -- they did this about a year ago when the federal government made an increase to gasoline taxes -- one of those stations increased by two cents and they all did. The dealers say, “We do not set the prices, the prices are told to us by our agents in Toronto.”

1120

The prices are being set by the major oil companies in Toronto and dictated to the stations in northern Ontario. There is no competition there, and if there is no competition, that calls for government intervention. Government has to ensure that the prices then, if they are not being dictated by a market price, are being dictated in a fair and equitable manner.

That has not been happening. We are paying a penalty. The government’s own studies show that every driver in northern Ontario is paying a penalty of well over $100 per driver in additional costs for gasoline compared to drivers in southern Ontario, an injustice and irritation that will continue in northern Ontario until this government acts on this important issue.

Another important injustice, not just for northern Ontario but an injustice felt by people across this province, was the important issue -- it continues to be an important issue -- of the insurance rip-off that drivers are facing across this province.

We have an unjust system. The insurance companies recorded record profits of over $1 billion in the last year. At the same time, the rates have been escalating way out of line with what inflation rates have been doing. The cost differences for insurance between Ontario and the western provinces is astronomical. Anyone you talk to who has lived out west or has moved out west will tell you the difference between the system out there and here. We have to look seriously at moving towards the kind of government-run, driver co-operative type of insurance system that is in place in the western provinces.

It is time for the government to act on this issue, and I am sure this will continue to be a major issue in the early stages of this term of office.

I commend my fellow member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who has made this such an important issue for the people of Ontario, who has spoken so many times on it, and I know that we will continue to be working together to demand action from this government. We certainly need more than the bills it presented last spring, when the government committed to what it called the cap, a freeze and a rollback on insurance prices. In fact, in the bills that were presented, it was a cap that was not a cap, it was a freeze that was not a freeze and it was a rollback that was not a rollback. There was absolutely nothing achieved from those bills, and we need to have something a lot stronger to protect the interests of the drivers of this province.

Finally, in terms of major issues, I want to address the number one issue in the province today, the issue of free trade. This has been the major economic issue and now the major political issue, the major social issue in our country.

In the election campaign it was a very big issue. The people of the province had the opportunity to decide what they wanted to do. The Premier asked for a mandate on this issue. The Premier has a mandate, and the Premier is going to have to act on this issue.

The only party advocating free trade in the campaign, the Conservative Party, the third party now, has been decimated. It lost more than two thirds of its seats, and that position has been resoundingly rejected by the people of this province.

We in the New Democratic Party have consistently maintained a very strong position in opposition to the Mulroney initiative. We are going to continue to call upon this government to act on its commitment to stop the agreement. The conditions which the Premier placed on such an agreement have not been met. The Liberal government agrees that they have not been met. It is up to the Premier now to act on his commitment to the people of this province.

Mr. Fleet: How do you propose they be stopped?

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am going to get to that.

This agreement is a serious threat to Canada’s future. It is clear from the political surveys that are being done that people are confused. We have to explain the issue in a clearer manner. I look forward to seeing the final text of this agreement so people can see the final language and see that this agreement does nothing for the people of Canada.

We have to have an open debate on the future of our country, and that is what the free trade issue gets at. Ultimately, it may well have to be decided in the next federal election, and that election may well be the election to put a final stop to the nonsense the Prime Minister is trying to impose on Canada.

In the agreement there is no indication that there are any winners. Even the winners do not know what they are getting out of the agreement. One of the winners was supposedly the steel industry, which has a very important component in my own community, Sault Ste. Marie, with Canada’s third-largest steel mill. The industry continues to be an advocate of the agreement but, when you talk to them, all they say is that it maintains the status quo. All the free trade advocates used to complain because the opponents were trying to maintain the status quo, and now the supposed winners are saying: “We are happy because we have been able to maintain the status quo in our industry. We feel we can maintain the access we have had.”

But what does that access include in terms of steel? The agreement does not provide any protection against the imposition of future countervailing duties; it does not provide any protection against antidumping measures, it does not stop the current duty that was imposed on specialty steels; and it does nothing about, even most flagrantly, the voluntary restraint quotas the Canadian steel industry is currently operating on, its agreement to hold its shipments to the United States to 3.5 per cent. How can we call it a free trade agreement when the steel industry is going to have to maintain its level of shipments at 3.5 per cent of a declining market?

The steel market in the US has been declining for the last 20 years, not just in terms of what the US steel companies are selling; the total volume of steel sold in the United States economy has been on a downward trend for the past two decades. So we are stuck and we continue to be stuck with what the steel industry had before. It was supposed to be a winner in the agreement, and it has gained absolutely nothing.

The steel industry has made no commitments to new investment, no commitments to new jobs as a result of that agreement. The agreement in fact has sacrificed a lot of other industries, a lot of other players in our economy, in order to maintain the status quo for an industry like the steel industry.

This morning we met with representatives of the forest products industry. We were told, “Oh, yes, we are generally in favour of the agreement,” but when you talk to them individually today, they say, “Well, we have some real reservations about what happened.’’ The industry as a whole said the reason it is in favour of the agreement is that, again, it maintains the status quo. It feels it will not be threatened any further than it has already been threatened.

But the arbitrary, unjustified 15 per cent duty on softwood lumber has not been rolled back. All the other duties are going to be rolled back in terms of the free trade agreement over a 10-year period, but that is an exception, so there is going to be no free trade in softwood lumber. Naturally they, particularly the lumber producers, are very disappointed that they have not gained; they have maintained the status quo.

Again, one of our strong competitive export industries in the resource sector has gained nothing, it has maintained the status quo. Meanwhile, so many other industries are going to be threatened by this agreement, let alone the threat to political sovereignty and our culture, potentially our social institutions, our regional development programs and so on.

We know the resource sector will always be in demand by US industry. There could be no doubt that the US will never shut off its imports of our resource products. It needs them. The resource sector is not the issue in free trade or trade discussions with the United States. There are irritants that arise from time to time in that sector, sure, but there is absolutely zero risk that the US will shut out the resources of Canada from coming into the US. In fact, we have just seen in the agreement that they want to go the other way. The energy agreement gives them full access to all our energy resources. We, the Canadian people, have given to Americans a right to our energy resources that is equal to the right we give to Canadians.

1130

We have just sold our whole energy heritage to the United States. The Americans want our resources. They are not going to shut them off. Why the people of the resource sector, the people of northern Ontario, would feel threatened by trade discussions when it comes to resources, I cannot understand. We are the ones who have the trump card in any trade discussions when it comes to resources. We have the resources; they want the resources. How can we possibly ever lose if we have someone reasonable doing the negotiation when it comes to deals on resources?

This agreement does not provide a dispute settlement mechanism. It guts the auto pact. It provides threats to certain areas of our agricultural industries. We have given away our energy resources, and our independence is threatened. It provides nothing for our country. It provides nothing for this province. It provides nothing for my community.

In our area, the lumber industry is still threatened. It is still affected by the 15 per cent export duty. There are no new jobs or investments coming into the steel company in Sault Ste. Marie. Northern Breweries is threatened by free trade. If people want to see what benefits might come from an economic policy based solely on free trade in my community, the best evidence is to look right across the border; look at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, compared to Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. If the solution is free, unfettered access with no barriers whatsoever between the two countries, look at what the Sault, Michigan, has compared to what the Sault, Ontario, has.

The Sault, Michigan, has free trade with the US. It has had free trade with the US for 150 years because it is in the US, but it is an economy that is absolutely decrepit. The community has shrunk in size. Back in the 1930s, the Sault, Ontario, and the Sault, Michigan, were roughly the same size, communities of 30,000 to 40,000 with major industries on both sides of the border. The industries in the Sault, Ontario, have continued to grow while the industries in the Sault, Michigan, have all shut down. They have no industry left. All they have is one university in that community and a very desperate tourism industry. Certainly tourism is not the future for northern Ontario; tourism is part of what we need in northern Ontario. We need industry and we need to do everything possible to get all the jobs we can get out of our resources.

The Sault, Michigan, has had free trade and has not done anything in terms of its economy as a hinterland of the United States. If we end up applying the same rules to Canada that the United States applies to its hinterlands, its resource areas, we are going to be in desperate shape right across our country. If one compares comparable areas outside of the big population mainstreams -- Manitoba with North Dakota, Alberta with Montana or Wyoming, or British Columbia with the state of Washington -- one would come to the conclusion that right across the country Canada has always been fairer in protecting the areas that do not have the big population bases. We have a history of trying to develop and encourage reasonable levels of economy, good levels of living standards in those areas. The United States is a much more unfettered market system and it lets the areas away from the big population bases suffer the consequences.

We have to have the opportunity for regional development programs in our country, and that is one of the biggest threats we are faced with in this agreement. The agreement does not provide any guarantees that we can continue our regional development programs. It will allow an arbitration board to make the decision as to whether regional development programs are, in fact, subsidies. We cannot risk that; we cannot let the Americans have a say on whether or not we are going to continue regional development programs in our country. We have made a priority of giving a better level of economy, a better standard of living to the areas of our country away from the big population centres, and we have to have the right to continue to do so.

The Premier made a commitment to the people of the province during the election campaign that there can be no deal if regional development programs are threatened. He said there can be no deal if agricultural safeguards are not maintained, if our cultural industries are put at risk or if we lose the right to choose among foreign investments. He said there can be no deal if we do not have a binding dispute settlement mechanism, and there can be no deal if the auto pact is gutted. The Premier said, “That is my bottom line.”

His first priority has to be to see that this government lives up to that commitment. We intend to see that it does. I am presenting another resolution that may well be the one that will be debated next Thursday on this issue.

I would like to review this resolution, because it is of such a critical nature to our province. I hope we get the endorsement of all three parties for this when it comes before the Legislature for debate:

“This Legislature, deploring the trade agreement negotiated between the government of Canada and the government of the United States as a sellout of Canada’s sovereignty and independence and a threat to thousands of Canadian jobs, resolves;

“First, that no part of the agreement falling within provincial legislation will be approved or legislated or ordered by this Legislature or the government of Ontario;

“Second, that the government or Legislature of Ontario will pass no laws or orders in council to comply with the agreement if the agreement is formally signed by the two federal governments and approved by the respective national legislative bodies;

“Third, that the government and Legislature of Ontario will pursue every constitutional, legal and political channel to express its opposition to this free trade agreement.”

I would like to present this resolution, get it on Orders and Notices. I look forward to debating it and getting the support of the legislators of this province to ensure that we do protect our interests here in Ontario and protect the people of our country. I believe in Canada. We have a great country. Let us keep it that way.

Mr. Pollock: I want to comment briefly on one particular point. I had the opportunity on Saturday of attending a testimonial dinner for a highly respected former member of the House, Elie Martel. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome his daughter, Shelley Martel, to this assembly and to say how much I enjoyed attending that testimonial dinner.

The one thing I really wanted to point out is that from where I live, I had to leave home reasonably early in the morning. I stopped in my riding to fill up with gas before I drove on up to Sudbury, and I had to leave early the next morning from Sudbury to get back to a Santa Claus parade in Lakefield. I filled my car up in Sudbury that night. I had to pay one cent more for gas in my riding than I had to pay in Sudbury.

It discounts, to a point, that gas is always higher in northern Ontario. Maybe it is over a period of a year or quite a few years, I do not know, but it certainly was not last Saturday. I wanted to put that particular point on the record.

1140

Mr. McClelland: I want to commend the member for Hamilton Mountain on his very thorough canvassing of the speech on some of the issues. He quite clearly identified as the major issue of the day the issue of free trade. I think the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) quite rightly asks the question, what would he do about it? I find it very interesting that his leader repeatedly in the House, almost on a daily basis, will ask the Premier of the government what we plan to do on this issue. Then the member in his speech, suggests the very things that are indeed in his resolution, suggested things that this government is in fact doing.

This government has made a commitment in the throne speech itself to bring the issue for resolution and full debate in the House in reference to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. I can only assume, in as much as the honourable member effectively endorses what our government is doing, that he is quite satisfied with the position we are taking. I suggest that he pass on to his leader the very things that he would suggest are the things that we have been doing and will continue to do.

I am delighted that he is effectively endorsing the position of this government in the way we are addressing the issue of free trade with public debate, education and full debate within this House and in committee of this House, and I thank him for that.

Mr. Pouliot: I had no intention of getting up, but in this short time maybe it is quite apropos that I say a few words on behalf of the largest riding in Ontario, extending to the shores of Port Severn. I am referring to 114,000 square miles.

I want to commend my friend whose point regarding gasoline prices was perhaps, and I am sure it was, well researched by the driver or other occupant in that car on that evening of Saturday last. With respect, however, you were in the near north. As you go to the true north in Ontario, extending again -- and I am repeating myself -- to the shores of Hudson Bay, the parallel is that the prices themselves keep escalating to the tune, and I am not mistaken, of $4.50 and $5 on the other side of Ontario, conditions that rival the Third World.

My good friend from Sault Ste. Marie -- and you do not have to emanate with a PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology necessarily, although he does and he is to be commended -- he knows about free trade. His words border on gospel.

One of the problems we have is that the government does not come across. It is holding hands. It has not been a secret that in the political arena when we talk about philosophy, we never in the same breath talk about Liberal parties. They are literally the scavengers of political marketplaces, federally or provincially, whatever it takes. They call it flexibility. Under that sort of terminology they commit terrible sins. It is time to come clean on the issue of free trade. What is the government’s stand? Tell us. With all the sincerity at its command that any motion that comes under provincial jurisdiction it will not acquiesce and it will defeat --

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

Mr. Morin-Strom: I thank the members who did respond to my comments. I did enjoy the event with the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) and certainly congratulate Elie for his many years of service here to the Legislature. He has done our province a great service and I look forward to working with his daughter, who I am sure will make a valuable contribution to our caucus and to the people of the province for years to come.

The member for Hastings-Peterborough talks about the problems of gasoline prices in rural parts of southern Ontario and certainly they do face problems compared to the Golden Horseshoe prices, but Sudbury is in the near north and as the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) points out, the prices escalate quite a bit when you head north of Sudbury and even as far west from Sudbury as Sault Ste. Marie.

The member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland) made some good points in terms of the rhetoric that is being put forward by the Liberal government and I can agree with much of the rhetoric that we have heard from the Premier on the issue of free trade. What we have not seen is action from the Premier on the issue of free trade. That is what we are demanding from this government, some action, some steps that will ensure that the province is using and protecting its jurisdiction, that it will use those powers to ensure the interests of this province are maintained for years to come. I congratulate the member for Lake Nipigon on his re-election, a tremendous victory in the largest riding in the province, and I look forward to fighting these issues of concern to northern Ontario for many years to come.

Mr. McClelland: On a point of explanation, Mr. Speaker: I just want to extend my apologies to the member for Sault Ste. Marie. In my enthusiasm and haste, I referred to him as the member for Hamilton Mountain. I recognize that there may be many things in common with those two ridings but I do apologize and hope the honourable member will accept my apology for that mistake.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for the point of explanation. Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to start speaking now if they are through.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker and also as Chairman of the committees of the whole House. I know you will serve this Legislature well. You are a very fair and honest man and you will be an excellent asset to our assembly.

I would also like to congratulate the old members -- old in terms of length of service, not age -- for their re-election and the new members on their election and I wish them well in the difficult days ahead. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the good people of Wellington for re-electing me and I will try to serve them to the best of my ability once again.

I think it is appropriate now to congratulate the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes) on his victory at the Grey international plowing event. I know he spent many months preparing for his one run down and back and did an excellent job. So far he says he has not received his trophy and I hope the member for Grey (Mr. Lipsett) will give it to him shortly. He certainly deserves it.

Speaking of agriculture, I would like to bring to the attention of this House my concern about the lack of initiative in the agriculture sector contained in the throne speech. I would like to quote the one paragraph that does appear. It says, “In the midst of sustained global pressures affecting the agriculture sector, we must maintain a commitment to develop innovative approaches to assisting Ontario farmers.”

There is no question that our farmers are under global pressure and that the government must continue to assist them so they will be able to survive, but surely the government must have some plans and programs in place to provide that assistance and I encourage the government to present it as soon as possible before it is too late.

On educational reforms mentioned in the throne speech, I certainly support the concept that we should have provincial standards at the elementary level and reduction of class size in grades 1 and 2. They are worthy goals and I do support that initiative, but I would also like to point out to the House that there is a bit of a problem: the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) does not provide sufficient classrooms.

1150

It would seem to me to make more sense that before you divide classes and create more of a problem, you build the classrooms that are necessary.

The chairman of the Wellington County Board of Education, Dr. William Lawless, expressed his dismay this past year when Wellington county did not receive any capital funding whatsoever, not a penny. Wellington’s needs are as great as those of many, and they certainly need some capital dollars. This year alone they have $12,811,000 just to upgrade their facilities to meet this year’s need. Their total five-year projection is $53.5 million. Surely Wellington is entitled to its fair share, and that would be $10 million this year.

The one problem we have in many parts of Wellington is the fact that there are, as I mentioned earlier, too many portables. It is my understanding that in this province there are 154,000 students housed in portables. Surely before we split class sizes, even in elementary levels, we should provide decent accommodations for our young people.

Where in the throne speech is the Liberal government’s commitment to increase the government share of the municipal school tax burden to 60 per cent, as promised in the last two elections?

I would like to turn to the section in the throne speech dealing with health for seniors and the disabled, the section entitled, “Greater Opportunity for Independent Healthy Living.” Just to show how fair and impartial I am, I want members to know that I very strongly support this initiative. I support the need for more community-oriented health care systems, and that many of our seniors and disabled require special services that will allow them to reach their full potential and contribute as much as possible according to their ability.

But there is a problem. Reference has been made in this House from time to time that a certain government agency is like a swamp. I would like to compare the problems I have referred to as a jungle: a jungle that is overgrown with a maze of bureaucratic red tape that the average person cannot penetrate and, in frustration, gives up and therefore is denied the programs he should be entitled to.

I make reference to a problem I have had in my riding where an older man went into the hospital and had both legs amputated because he was a diabetic. His wife tried to provide some services in her home so that when he returned he would have the advantage of a ramp and certain facilities that were needed. She tried to complete the application forms. She had the hospitalization, the amputation and all the problems relating to her husband’s illness, and at the same time she was obligated to fill out the forms. The inevitable happened. She did not fill them out in time, so she was denied assistance for providing the services her husband needed. She went ahead without approval, so then she lost her right.

I have mentioned this to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini), and I will send over some material on it later. What I would propose is that there be a provincial co-ordinating agency so that the services of the seniors and the disabled are all tied together, one ministry that could oversee all the programs so that an individual who has no idea how to break through the bureaucratic red tape of this jungle I have referred to can simply make one phone call and be given all the information necessary for whatever service, whether it comes under the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services or the Ministry of Revenue. It does not make sense to have so many ministers responsible for individual programs, because an average person cannot understand them, and by not providing that information we deny him the opportunity to participate.

I would like to turn now to the environment. The throne speech says, “We will continue to take a strong and forceful approach to protecting our lands, lakes, rivers, beaches and air.” I can certainly support that excellent statement, and every sensible person in the province would support it.

So what does the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) do to protect our lakes, rivers and beaches? By not supporting our municipal councils and upgrading and rebuilding their sewage systems, the minister is indeed contributing to this very problem of pollution of our lakes, rivers and beaches.

I would just like to highlight the point l am making by reading an excerpt from a letter from the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority pertaining to one of my small villages. The letter is addressed to the Ministry of the Environment. It is pertaining to the village of Clifford’s proposed sewage system. The letter reads:

“It is understood that the village of Clifford is pursuing with your ministry the provision of a sanitary sewage system to serve the residents of that municipality. Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority is an agency with a vested interest in water quality within the Saugeen watershed and wholeheartedly supports this initiative. This agency feels that the foresight of the village combined with an expressed concern for water quality should be rewarded with their application receiving every consideration for funding.”

They urge the minister to get on with the job.

The minister, or certainly the government in the throne speech, promises to take a strong and forceful approach to protect our lakes, rivers and beaches. Then why not do so by helping the village of Clifford, for example? This is only one example in Wellington. There are several municipalities that require provincial assistance; Harriston, Fergus, Arthur, Mount Forest and Elora are just a few.

In the town of Harriston, they have had well over 50 breaks in their water system. If a fire were to occur, how would they be able to put it out if their water lines were broken? Surely there is a responsibility for the ministry to assist these small towns and villages. They are willing to pay their fair share, but the government has to be willing to pay its share as well.

Another extremely important matter in the environmental field pertains to the waste problem that we have in many parts of the province. I think a solution to the problems of finding landfill sites and glorified dumps is something that most of the members of this assembly will have problems with in their ridings, if not today certainly in the very near future.

I want to quote from Farm and Country, September 15, 1987. It is a cover story. The headline reads “Dump Threats Loom Larger.”

“George Strachan, past president of Wellington Federation of Agriculture makes a point that sanitary landfill sites are unacceptable in modern times and farmers in Wellington county do not want another dump. Strachan could be speaking for most Ontario farmers across the province. They have fought approvals of new sanitary landfill sites for years, usually to no avail. Their outrage may finally have reached the boiling point. Progress towards alternatives to sanitary landfill sites remain agonizingly slow. Yet every man, woman and child continues to throw out one ton of garbage each year that has to go somewhere.

“Farmers harbour several grave concerns about garbage dumps. They worry about dumps gobbling up farmland and devaluing nearby property. Most of all, they worry about potential ground water problems pertaining to the pollution aspects for their families. Ontario Federation of Agriculture president, Brigid Pyke contends there are 800 potentially hazardous landfill sites in our province.”

I want to finish this section, but since it is so close to 12 o’clock, would it be appropriate to move the adjournment of the debate?

On motion by Mr. J. M. Johnson, the debate was adjourned.

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ARGOSY FINANCIAL GROUP OF CANADA LTD.

Mr. Philip: Yesterday, the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) announced there would be no compensation for the victims of the collapse of Argosy Financial Group of Canada. It is interesting to note that the Liberal research documents and the statements by the Liberals in opposition condemned the operations of the registrar of mortgage brokers and the Ontario Securities Commission. As a government, Liberal members of the standing committee on the Ombudsman recommended that consideration be given to an ex gratia payment to the investors. Prior to the election, the minister indicated that he was considering compensation of the investors.

In July, the executive assistant to the Premier promised that an offer from the government was only weeks away. During the election, the Premier (Mr. Peterson), meeting with some of the investors, raised their hopes once again.

This was the same David Peterson who, as opposition leader, called on the Tory government to compensate the shareholders of Crown Trust. The Weir and Foulds brief to the Ombudsman committee clearly showed that a majority of the people investing in Argosy were small investors who were poorly advised by the government, a government that was not adequately performing its regulatory functions.

It is upsetting to find the Liberals saying one thing in opposition and practicing the opposite in government. It is even more upsetting to find promises being made by a government before an election that are not kept after the election. To raise the hopes of senior citizens and small investors that justice would be done during an election campaign and then to dash their hopes afterwards is downright disgusting.

SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mr. Cousens: I would like to table with this House, and for the information of all, an appeal of a constituent of mine who pleads for justice, an appeal to all who claim to uphold the justice system from a victim of the justice system which, from her perspective, “is nothing more than an ineffective farce leaving those unfortunate enough to get caught up in it disillusioned and disappointed.” This is a woman whose spouse left her a number of years ago. She says:

“Where, pray tell me, is justice in the following: A husband after 34 years of marriage in 1980 is able to walk away.... He is able to stall legal proceedings by ignoring legal notices and correspondence, changing solicitors and leaving the province. He is able to feign an inability to support his wife beyond $150 a month and yet supports another woman, forcing his legal wife to exist on family benefits paid by the government. He is able to flagrantly defy a court order without consequence.

“Is this not enough? Where is justice when a lawyer can ‘sit on’ a case for six to seven years and virtually accomplish nothing except to disillusion, frustrate and help to destroy the emotional health of his client... ?

“And where is justice in the Law Society of Upper Canada which, when appealed to for assistance and informed of such flagrancy of justice and lack of professional responsibility, turns a deaf ear?

“Where does one turn when ministers, government case workers and authorities in the community say there is nothing they can do because it is ‘just the system’?

“Where,” she says, “I implore you. is our justice system? Is it merely a figment of our imagination? It seems that for those who break or abuse the legal and moral systems there are always rights to be protected, but for those who are the victims of the actions of others there are no rights.

“Is it any wonder that caring, law-abiding citizens feel abused and downtrodden by the system? Is it any wonder that some are led to suicide and others to taking the law into their own hands? I know those feelings: the anger, the frustration, the helplessness. When will the nightmare end? Does no one care?”

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Carrothers: I would like to comment on a matter which is of great concern to the residents of my riding, the proposed Canada-US tree trade agreement. Last evening, I held a public forum in my riding to discuss the proposed agreement. This forum was well attended and many points of view were represented. The participants expressed grave concern over the loss of cultural sovereignty which could result if this agreement is implemented. They were concerned about concessions and control over our energy resources, over control of foreign investment in Canada and over the fact that the agreement does not increase access to the American market.

I was pleased to note that the participants were in agreement with the provincial government’s position on the free trade agreement and content with the handling of the matter by the Premier. Unlike the loyal opposition, the participants recognized the regional nature of Canada and the jurisdictional questions that the agreement raises. However, they also noted that Ontario’s opinion would hold significant weight, both in Canada and in the United States, when it comes down to the final assessment of this agreement.

This shows once again that the government of Ontario is responding to the concerns of Ontarians and has their support in so doing.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I want to bring to the attention of this House another example of the injustices and, really, the outright absurdity of the insurance system we have in this province. This is the case of Danny Ciuffetelli, his wife Mary and his brother-in-law in St. Catharines. Dan and Mary own two cars. Danny’s brother-in-law had an accident while driving Danny’s car. As a result, Danny and Mary’s insurance was cancelled by Allstate. The only alternative they could find was Royal Facility.

Premiums increased from $850 every six months to $2,000 every six months. Danny’s brother-in-law is now in the process of negotiating -- which of course is a false term; it is all arbitrary -- his insurance on his own car, and he has been told that he too will likely pay inflated premiums because of the accident. Two innocent people, as well as the guilty one, are being penalized, and two insurance companies get a rake-off for one accident.

In the public plans of western Canada, only the driver responsible for an accident pays a financial penalty on his insurance. Such charges are assessed on the driver’s licence, as opposed to his or her insurance system. That only seems to make sense. Why should innocent friends and relatives pay for other’s mistakes? Of course, that kind of reform is not even proposed in this government’s new legislation. It cannot be done in Ontario because we must protect the insurance industry. I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), is that not correct?

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Harris: Members of this House may be interested to learn that an overwhelming majority of Canada’s 43,000 chartered accountants are in favour of entering into a freer trade agreement with the United States.

A poll commissioned by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, entitled A Study of Members’ Attitudes towards Freer Trade, shows that almost three quarters of the members see it as enhancing the economy as a whole, and those in public practice and industry predict potential benefits to clients and employers.

Forty per cent cited access to a larger market as a major advantage, and 15 per cent noted increased competitiveness for Canadian industry. In Ontario, they saw positive prospects for both telecommunications and financial services.

The Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) will be especially interested to know that chartered accountants generally think the resource sector stands to benefit the most.

Commenting on the results, Bill Farlinger, chairman of the board at Clarkson Gordon and newly appointed chairman of CICA’s public affairs committee, pointed out: “It is interesting that such a high percentage of CAs are in favour. This is quite credible, because the profession itself is not affected one way or another. These are the unbiased views of business people on what is good for the country.”

The only vested interest they may have is that if business is good and if the economy is strong, then they too as a profession will prosper.

Unbiased Canadians who understand finance and are hired by the government every day to provide advice on the economy support free trade. I urge the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his Liberal colleagues to accept this free, unbiased advice.

TWINNING OF MISSISSAUGA AND KARIYA CITY

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to inform the members of this assembly of a very successful-twinning that officially occurred in 1981 between the city of Mississauga and Kariya City, Japan.

Our twinning has brought us many benefits, not only in sharing and experiencing a culture which is very different from ours, but in welcoming some Japanese businesses to Mississauga.

At present we have 63 Japanese companies in our city; approximately 14 of these are head offices. Members will probably recognize them: Bridgestone Canada, Canon Canada Inc., the Nissan Automobile Co., Sharp Electronics, Hino Diesel Trucks and Janome Sewing Machines, to name but a few.

Along with the numerous sports and student exchanges, we have had the following visitors this year:

The regional policy planners of Japan toured the United States to study city management and policies, and Mississauga was the only Canadian city to be selected by this delegation for study. The Kariya Chamber of Commerce has visited our Mississauga Board of Trade. Community groups from Kariya such as the Rotary Club, International Friendship, firefighters’ groups and business people have visited and stayed with their counterparts in our city. The list goes on and on.

The twinning has created jobs for the residents of our city, has created the opportunity for Japanese companies to expand and locate in Canada and has created friendship and trust between the people of Kariya and Mississauga, a very worthwhile achievement.

1340

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: This government has had the enhancement of post-secondary education in Ontario as a priority since it assumed office. I am most pleased to announce that the government continues to recognize this priority and will provide $1,545,000,000 in university operating grants to Ontario’s universities and related institutions in 1988-89.

This amount represents an increase of $97.5 million or 6.7 per cent over total operating support provided in 1987-88. I should note in this context that university operating grants have increased by 16 per cent between the 1985-86 and the 1987-88 fiscal years. Consequently, we are building on a significantly expanded base.

However, as the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) noted in his statement to the Legislature yesterday, there are significant pressures being placed on the province’s finances. We must practice prudent fiscal management in order to maintain the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide the House with a brief summary of how the $97.5 million in additional funding support will be allocated.

A major component is $27 million in new funding to recognize enrolment growth in the current fiscal year, that is, 1987-88 increases over 1986-87 enrolment levels. This amount has been determined on the basis of estimates of enrolment growth taking place this year and will be adjusted, if necessary, to honour the government’s commitment to fully fund enrolment growth over and above increases in base funding.

We will be providing $2.7 million in increased funding for the ministry’s French-language and bilingual programs, bringing the total for these programs to $20.3 million in 1988-89. This is an increase of 15.3 per cent and represents another measure of the government’s continuing commitment to increase spending for post-secondary education in the French language from $24 million in 1986-87 to $42 million in 1991-92.

In addition, my ministry has allocated $3.9 million in increased funding for the faculty renewal program which is supporting the appointment of 500 new faculty members over a five-year period. This increase will bring program funding in 1988-89 to $16.4 million, an increase of 31 per cent over 1987-88. An additional 71 faculty members will be appointed in 1988-89, the third year of the program, bringing the total number at that juncture to 368.

Finally, base funding will be increased by $63.9 million or 4.5 per cent. I should also note that tuition fees will be increased in 1988-89 by 4.5 per cent.

These particular allocations have been determined to continue new programs initiated during the last two years and to promote accessibility to university education. I will today be requesting the Ontario Council on University Affairs to advise on the distribution of these funds. I hope to be able to advise individual institutions of their allocations early in the new year.

Turning to the colleges of applied arts and technology, I am pleased to inform the Legislature that the government will be providing $661.3 million in operating support in 1988-89. This represents an increase of $37.3 million over the 1987-88 allocation, an overall increase of six per cent comprising two major components, the basic operating grant and special initiatives.

The basic operating grant will increase by 4.5 per cent from the current allocation of $624 million to $651.2 million. As with the universities, this increase in grants builds on a significantly larger funding base, up 35.6 per cent from $487.8 million in 1985-86.

In addition, another $9.2 million will be made available to support three priority initiatives of this government.

Colleges in northern Ontario serve large areas with many small communities. They must provide an adequate level and mix of programs to accommodate these conditions. We will be providing $4 million to assist colleges to meet the programming needs of northern Ontario.

The government recognizes that colleges require funding to provide facilities and modes of program delivery appropriate to students with special needs. Another $3.1 million will assist the colleges to make the necessary adjustments to accommodate students with special needs.

Finally, there will be $2.1 million in additional funding to allow the colleges to increase the number of programs offered in the French language.

Details on the distribution of these funds and the allocation to individual colleges will be announced by the ministry as soon as possible. Tuition fees in 1988-89 in the colleges will, as in the past, match the increase in the basic operating grant.

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The care and rehabilitation of young people who are convicted of breaking the law in this province is a matter of great importance to every one of us. On any given day, the ministry is responsible for more than 9,000 young persons as part of our duties under the Young Offenders Act. In order to ensure that we are achieving the greatest possible potential for setting young lives back on track in society, it is essential that we equip those entrusted with the care of the young offenders with the skills and knowledge required to make a positive and lasting impact.

Of particular concern to my ministry is the training of staff members in the area of open-custody residential programming. As most members will know, open custody is a new disposition which was introduced with the implementation of the Young Offenders Act. It is a court-ordered sanction which enables some young offenders to serve their custody terms in a residential setting, close to their schools, families, job opportunities, social services and other positive influences which support rehabilitation.

Effective supervision and guidance of adolescents in this type of environment demands strong character and good common sense, but it also calls for specialized knowledge and skills.

Since April 1985, when the Young Offenders Act was implemented for the 16- and 17-year-old age group, the Ministry of Correctional Services has established more than 450 open-custody beds in approximately 45 residences across Ontario. This capacity has been established through contracts with community agencies which employ approximately 400 youth workers. Throughout the past two and a half years, basic training has been provided through a combination of ministry and agency resources in such areas as orientation to the Young Offenders Act, first aid, safety and security, and elementary supervision techniques.

I am pleased to announce today that a new set of training programs, designed to supplement and expand on existing programs, will be made available through my ministry’s human resources and staff training branch to all open-custody youth workers, beginning next month.

Programs to be incorporated in the new curriculum will include safety and security in a community residential setting; planning and managing rehabilitation programs for young persons; advanced supervision techniques; and the improvement of specific skills like counselling, defusing hostility and resolving conflicts.

These training initiatives will be put into place over a period of four months and will be delivered at a cost of approximately $400,000, including instruction fees, materials and transportation and accommodation for participants, as well as the cost of replacing these workers during their absence.

This renewed emphasis on staff training represents a continuation of our commitment to ensure that all youth workers who carry out the work of this ministry possess a clear and common understanding of the underlying principles and practical approaches to dealing with young persons in conflict with the law.

RESPONSES

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

Mr. Farnan: In general, I think it can be said that we would support the open-custody concept. I would think it somewhat ironic that we are bringing in programs of training after the fact that the programs have been established. It is certainly not before it is time, for example, that we would be training staff in safety and security and the planning and management of rehabilitation programs for young persons.

We would like to see an increase in the open-custody programs across the province and we certainly would like to see some distribution of those programs to ensure that all areas of the province are adequately served.

1350

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. B. Rae: In my spare time I have been reading Animal Farm, and I think it is perhaps useful to reflect on the changes in the messages we are getting from the Liberal Party. I am looking over at the government House leader with respect to education and I remember whenever the Tories would announce the funding levels for universities, the degree of excoriation that the minister at that time would receive from the then critic for university affairs, the proposals that were made prior to the 1985 election with respect to superfunding of the universities.

The comment I would make in reply to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod), whose statement we welcome in its timeliness if not in all its substance, is simply that when one strips away the hodgepodge of programs that the government has superimposed on the basic grant, the basic allocation to the universities is barely keeping up with inflation.

I think it is fair to say that in my contact with all the universities, university presidents, faculty associations and student bodies, the fundamental problem remains the question of the basic program and the allocation, so that we do not create -- last year it was Sorbara fellows; this year I presume they will be called McLeod fellows -- professors who are hired for a space of two or three years on the basis of this discretionary funding or the largesse of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), which is not notorious throughout the province, and who are then required to leave because the basic increase in the grants has simply not been there.

I say to the minister that I think the real need is for the government to recognize that the increase in the basic appropriation on the basic level of funding has to be higher than the rate of inflation. That is what we have been saying for a long time and we will say it again today.

Unless that problem is dealt with, the problem of overcrowded schools, overcrowded classrooms, problems of inadequate equipment in many of our scientific and engineering faculties, and in regard to the community colleges, problems of workload and issues of that kind -- which are not going to go away but which are going to be the subject of yet another round of collective bargaining the next time the community college teachers bargain – those problems will not go away and will not be dealt with. I am very concerned, and I am sure all members of the caucus are, that the minister’s announcement today really does not address those problems in the way that we had hoped.

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

Mr. Swart: I want to say a word or two relative to the training of the people in the youth homes, in reply to the announcement made by the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay).

I would remind him of what happened at Whitestone Place and St. David’s just recently under the government’s ministry there. All the training in the world is no good if the government is going to let private entrepreneurs rip off the system. Homes that the ministry does not run should be run by the John Howard Society and the Salvation Army and not by private entrepreneurs.

If they do have some private entrepreneurs who are good and they want to continue them, there has to be some decent policing of the system. There has to be somebody going in there who cares to see that these young people are not abused in that system. What has happened at Whitestone and St. David’s home in the Niagara Peninsula is absolutely disgraceful and must never be repeated.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Jackson: It is certainly unfortunate that the minister who speaks for colleges and the minister who speaks for universities has to become an apologist for the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) with her first major and significant statement in this House. It is unfortunate that we have a great numbers game being played with this announcement. I have my own theory. I believe that the seating arrangement in this great House reflects the significance that the Treasurer places on the various ministries he shepherds.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is why you are over there.

Mr. Jackson: I am disappointed that the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) has been relegated to the fourth row. Why the fourth row?

The minister today announced that she is giving $97.5 million. She is not giving $97.5 million for next year; she is giving $27 million for this year’s costs to pay for the seven per cent increase in enrolment, for the expenses that colleges and universities have been assuming and subsidizing in anticipation of an accessibility envelope, a special fund that her predecessor, the member for York North (Mr. Sorbara), promised this House. The fingerprints of the former member for Eglinton are still on his neck, it was so hard to get that extra funding out of the previous minister.

Now she stands in this House and tells us that she has combined all of this for $97.5 million. She has not. She is giving only $70 million to the universities; $27 million is going to be part of the accessibility envelope. It represents a total overall reduction in grants.

The faculty renewal is another ghost program. I see that the minister has mastered the same use of numbers as the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), refusing to talk about actual faculty hired. She is stating that for this number of dollars she can hire this number of faculty. The fact is, those faculty do not exist today. The universities in Ontario use those dollars to pay for existing faculty to bring their salaries up. But those are not the actual numbers; those are phantom numbers that have been included in this release today, and that is hardly appropriate, given the real problems associated with faculty renewal set out in the Bovey commission.

It is disappointing that the minister had to preface her remarks to apologize for the difficult situation the Treasurer has put her in. We would expect this minister to consider seriously the fact that her 4.5 per cent base funding probably includes several other hidden, special-program envelopes, so that ultimately it will be shown that these announcements are a significant reduction from last year’s expenditures.

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

Mr. Cousens: It is an interesting announcement made by the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay). It is something no one could say he was opposed to, but why not go a step further and do something to really help our young people who are under his care to get a new sense of values, a new sense of purpose, to get them started up again into our society? Is the minister just reintroducing the same kinds of programs, the same approach, without a new vision?

It seems to me that is the problem this government has. It is not taking the opportunity that it has to lift things up and say, “Here under our responsibility are young people who have gone astray. We want to help them. We want to set them straight, if we can. We want to motivate them. We want to get them so that they do not come back here again.” All I see coming through this announcement is more of the same. We want to educate the staff, we want to educate everyone around our young people, but we want the best for our young people. We want them to achieve their potential, and I do not sense that vision in the minister’s announcement.

I want to see something good for people. The minister has the chance within his ministry, in concert with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, to do something good and worth while. Let us put our best foot forward with them. Let us put good facilities there so that they have a good structure. The point that the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) brought up yesterday, having the Brockville young offenders’ secure facility, is the kind of thing that begins to show that we mean it. It is not just putting a small, piddling $400,000 out. We want to see some true commitment to our young people. They are under the minister’s care; let us do something about it.

Let us not forget that there is a huge problem right now in Metropolitan Toronto with the Young Offenders Act. The police are having trouble just working with the act as it is structured. Can the minister not do something to start working with the federal government to change the Young Offenders Act so that we can really work with it properly?

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) but he is absent. I have another leadoff question, which I will address to the Premier.

The Premier has now stated on a number of occasions that he thinks the answer to the problem of the free trade agreement, which he does not like, is a federal election. Can the Premier tell us, if there is no federal election, what is his answer then?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I think you can predict with certainty that there will be a federal election.

Mr. B. Rae: That is a silly answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. B. Rae: Let’s go back to square one, then, if that is what we need to do.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Ever thought of another line of work?

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, I have.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier just to say, quite clearly, in the event that a federal election does not take place prior to the signing and ratification of this document by both the Congress of the United States and the federal House of Commons and that ratification takes place and there is no federal election before then, what steps does the Premier intend to take to see that the free trade agreement is stopped?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I gather the honourable member’s federal leader is against the deal. He said that if he ever became the Prime Minister of this country –

Mrs. Grier: When.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: --everybody engages in wishful thinking from time to time, and is entitled to do so – he would repudiate the contract. I gather the federal Liberal leader has said the very same thing, so I think everybody knows that, whether that election is held prior to January 1, 1989, or post that particular date.

Mr. B. Rae: I am sure Mr. Broadbent appreciates the endorsement and it is one that will no doubt be of some use at some point.

Seriously, can the Premier explain why he talked during the election campaign so directly about the auto pact, which is clearly in the federal jurisdiction, and said that if the auto pact changes were included in the free trade agreement, he would regard that not only as unacceptable but as something that would mean there could be no deal?

If that is the position of the government, is the Premier not admitting that what he was telling the people of Ontario was, “Elect me and I will campaign so there can be a federal election on this issue as well”? Is that not a rather ludicrous proposition to put to the people? Is the Premier not looking to the ways in which Ontario itself, by exercising its powers in its jurisdiction, can do more to stop the deal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have answered this question on several occasions but I am happy to discuss it again with my honourable friend. Yes, as I have told him, the esteemed Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is doing a complete constitutional audit of the situation and looking at all aspects of the deal in which we have power, any incursion into or diminution of provincial powers as a result of that, any potential enabling legislation that would be requested from the federal government. It is at that point, if in fact it is requested, that we would have some direct influence.

As my honourable friend knows, the most obvious area of direct influence is over the question of wine markups. That is one that everybody understands. But as I told my honourable friend, we are under a considerable amount of assault in that area from other sources as well, about which the member, I gather, has taken the position that he wants to completely disregard it. We have to take all those considerations into account when we are developing policy in that regard. Those discussions are ongoing on those matters and when a conclusion is reached I will share it with my honourable friend.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will no doubt be aware of the incredible extent of the work refusal which has now been going on for two days at McDonnell Douglas. More than 1,000 workers are now refusing to work.

A ministry inspection of that plant took place during the months of September and October and a report was issued in the beginning of November. Can the minister explain how it is possible, having found as many infractions as are contained in this report, that the ministry would not have issued prosecutions directly against management and those managers responsible?

The situation is that the ventilation system is so bad that the air in the plant is partly made up of exhaust fumes from spray painting and elsewhere. Workers are now exposed to substances for which there do not appear to be any control programs in place. It is clear that under the medical surveillance program of the company certain work-related incidents have, on a systematic basis, not been reported to the Workers’ Compensation Board. A study has been done where workers have been found to have aluminum levels in their blood far in excess of the appropriate amounts.

Given that 1,000 workers had to go off the job in order to make the ministry hear, can the minister explain how it is possible that the ministry would not have issued prosecutions and would not have done that as soon as the inspections were completed, instead of saying, “We will give you a certain time to comply,” and issuing a series of compliance orders which clearly, in the workers’ views, are not worth the paper they are printed on?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I take some issue with the Leader of the Opposition’s suggestion that this is an incredible work stoppage. He knows and I know that what has happened there is that some 1,000 workers have refused to work because of their concern with occupational health and safety and some of the things that he referred to in his question.

Mr. B. Rae: You do not find it unbelievable that workers would have to do that in order to make you listen?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: What is really erroneous in what the Leader of the Opposition suggests is that the workers are going off work in order to make the ministry listen. The ministry has been in there and has issued a number of orders. His suggestion was that there should be prosecutions at this point. I simply tell him that prosecutions are contemplated when the investigation is over. The investigation is not over, so it is not timely to talk about prosecutions, and he knows that as well as I do.

Mr. B. Rae: On the basis of the report that was issued on November 6, which was issued to the union and to the company, the inspectors found more than 200 violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act -- more than 200 violations and not a single prosecution. The workers themselves have said that the only way they can get the government to listen and to prosecute is by going out. That is precisely what the workers themselves have said. So the minister is quite wrong when he says that is not why the workers are out. The workers are out to get him to enforce the law. He forces them to do that.

How can the minister tolerate a situation where he is forcing thousands of workers off the job because he is not prepared to do the job and he is sitting saying on national television, “It is a question of the company and the workers getting together”? It is not a problem of getting together; it is a problem of a ministry which still has not learned that it has to prosecute in order to protect the health of workers in this province. That is the issue and that is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that was not what the workers were demanding and that was not the purpose of this walkout. He knows because he has read the document and the demands of the workers that they are asking for prosecutions; I know that and he knows that. He knows full well that prosecutions are being contemplated, and when the investigation is over, if there is a determination that it is appropriate to prosecute, prosecutions will be implemented.

The fact is that yes, he is right, 212 orders were issued; some 160 have been complied with. With certain orders there has been a time frame for compliance. The workers agreed to that. He knows that and I know that, and when the investigation is complete, a decision as to whether prosecutions will be launched will be made.

[Applause]

Mr. B. Rae: Members over there applaud that. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) applauds that view of law. If anybody else is breaking the law, the Attorney General will be standing up on his high horse and --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: There is a process here. You walk right by the process. The rights of people are of no concern to you people at all.

Mr. Mackenzie: Bloody hypocrites.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Don’t call us hypocrites. I have just about had enough of this nonsense.

Mr. Mackenzie: Bring the workers in, the whole thousand of them and see how arrogant you want to be.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, order. If you wish to waste the time, I will wait. Would the Leader of the Opposition place his question through the chair?

Mr. B. Rae: My third question to the minister is: Can he explain why it is that at a meeting held yesterday between the company and inspectors from the Ministry of Labour, representatives of the union, both at the local level and at the national level, were not allowed to attend? They were forced to wait outside for seven hours in a hall waiting to be asked to come into the meeting and were not allowed in. Police were called by the company in order to get the union to leave.

How is it possible that the inspectors were in that meeting for seven hours while at the same time the company was sending workers home, telling them that if they refused work, they would not be paid a day’s pay, which is contrary to the act, as the minister well knows? Reprisals were going on in the plant. His inspectors were there talking to the company while that was going on, and the union was systematically excluded from bringing its point of view and its perspective to that meeting. Can the minister explain how he can tolerate that kind of behaviour?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition really ought to do justice to the situation and tell the whole story. It was not because inspectors from the Ministry of Labour were meeting with management that the representatives of the union were excluded from that meeting. They were excluded from that meeting, as I am given to understand, because the managers of that company were refusing to meet --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

1410

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Let’s let them blow off a little steam.

The situation in which management was refusing to meet with union representatives --

Mr. Mackenzie: You stupid son of a bitch.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) used unparliamentary language. Would the member withdraw?

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, you have to have more concern than this for --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member withdraw?

Mr. Mackenzie: No, I will not withdraw.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member reflect and withdraw?

Mr. B. Rae: What did he say?

Mr. Speaker: I heard it.

Mr. B. Rae: What did you hear?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member withdraw?

Mr. Mackenzie: I do not think there is anything to withdraw.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think you had better check Hansard and find out exactly what you are asking him to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Standing order 19(d)11 says a member should not use abusive and insulting language. Will the member withdraw?

Mr. Mackenzie: No.

Mr. Speaker: I have no choice but to ask Mr. Mackenzie to remove himself from the chamber for the balance of the day.

Mr. B. Rae: Can I just ask --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Wait until this process is completed.

Mr. Mackenzie left the chamber.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like you to check Hansard and review some of the interjections from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) this afternoon. If you want to describe what the member for Hamilton East said as abusive, then I would like you to look at some of the interjections from that person and tell us next week whether he was abusive this afternoon as well.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am perfectly content that the examination should take place. I said I did not believe the Leader of the Opposition, in his questions to the Minister of Labour, was taking any regard for the due process that the minister was referring to. The member for Hamilton East, on the other hand, referred to the Minister of Labour as a son of a bitch. I do not think that is appropriate language.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is inaccurate and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Well, I heard it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind all members that they are here to participate in the work and there are standing orders that we go by. I would ask all members to assist the chair in upholding those standing orders.

New question, the member for Burlington South.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Jackson: And now for something completely different.

My question is to the Minister of Education. There are serious questions being raised about the gap in confidence in the education community. Based on the statements that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has made in the last two provincial elections and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in his last two transfer payment statements, it would appear that there is quite a difference an election can make when examining the two sets of statements.

If we are to examine the transfer statement levels, if we are to consider them as high-water marks and compare last year with this year, we are looking at a 7.5 per cent transfer payment last year but only a 6.8 per cent transfer this year.

My question to the minister is, does this represent a reduction in the overall support rate from his government?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to indicate to the member for Burlington South that the transfer payment announcement which was made yesterday does in fact reflect what I believe to be an appropriate commitment and level of support for school boards throughout this province and in fact does provide funds for us to begin the implementation of the many significant commitments that this government has made to education in this province.

Mr. Jackson: I am somewhat concerned that we now have the second minister of this government in a social policy field rising to his feet and performing as an apologist for the Treasurer. My thesis seems to continue to be borne out. We now have the Minister of Education placed not in the first row, as has been the tradition in this province, but in the third row, and he is not even a member of the policy and priorities board of cabinet of this government. To have him stand and make that statement is cause for concern.

Last year in the transfer payment statement, there was a clear and concise statement with respect to the funds that were going to special program initiatives as announced by the minister’s predecessor, there was a clear enunciation of where the dollars were coming from with respect to separate school funding, and yet this year we have a rather convoluted general statement.

My question: Will the minister confirm what the general level grants are going to be for this year, given that last year’s were at 5.5 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Ward: So that the member for Burlington South does not misunderstand, I want to disabuse him of the notion that I am in fact an apologist. Frankly, I take some pride in saying to the member that the level of transfer payments which were enunciated yesterday by the Treasurer do in fact take into account some very significant commitments that this government has made in education; they reflect an additional commitment of some quarter of a billion dollars to education in this province. I want to assure my colleague the member for Burlington South that in the very near future I will be coming forward with a statement which enunciates the breakdown of those transfer payments and the level of support.

Mr. Jackson: When all is said, the minister is increasing at a decreasing rate. That is no legacy for the hundreds of thousands of children in this province who depend upon him personally to advocate for them in the cabinet of this government.

I want to talk to the minister about the suppression of information, which seems to be a new theme that is emerging from this government. We established two weeks ago that the three-year forwarding statistics, the rolling statistics on school board transfer payments, were four months late and were finally made public after the election. When you look at last year’s statistics, and those of every year previously, there is a special page referred to as the provincial summary. Just one entry, if I might, is that the percentage of net expenditure borne by the province in 1985 was 37.99 per cent in the elementary panel, and in 1986 it was 35.79 per cent. That is a clear reduction.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Jackson: My question is that for some funny reason, for the first time in Ontario’s history, that provincial summary is missing from the report. When I called the ministry to ask, officials indicated, “From above, we were told that this document was not be released.”

My question is, what is the minister trying to hide?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

1420

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would just like to point out to my friend the member for Burlington South that the report which he raised in this Legislature last week, as I indicated to him, was released immediately upon being brought to my attention. I would also remind the member that the report on Prescott-Russell which came to my attention on Monday was released within 48 hours. So, to begin with, there is no suppression of information.

Second, I point out to my friend that if he would review the three-year statistics carefully, he would note that the figures for the past two previous years are based on actual expenditure levels by the province and the boards, while the third-year statistics are solely on the basis of estimates and therefore one cannot extrapolate from those figures the rate of support. I will be happy to provide that summary to him the moment the year-end figures become available.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Earlier this week, this advertisement was placed in Toronto papers and around Ontario indicating that the rent review guideline for 1988 is 4.7 per cent. At the bottom of this notice, there is reference to the rent review information centre and a telephone number. One of our staff phoned that number today and asked the official how long it would be before a landlord’s application for an increase above the guideline would be processed, at which point the official broke out in laughter and said it would be so long and that things were so backed up that she could not give him a date.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That must be Don Cousens phoning.

Mr. Cousens: It is not a funny matter. There are people in Ontario right now who do not have a place to live. The government has a promise to provide 102,000 places by 1989, and we are now talking about people with problems. If the Premier wants to start interjections, I will interject back to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I just want to remind all members that interjections are out of order. Please place your question.

Mr. Cousens: I am giving enough background so that the honourable minister has a reason to answer it.

It has to do with the fact that this person who was asked by a researcher “How long would it be?” answered that it would be so long and that things were so backed up she could not give him a date and not to worry. Our staff person then went on and commented that any decision made in favour of the landlord would be retroactive to the date of the application and therefore could amount to thousands of dollars. He asked her what he should do, and the official replied, “Set up a bank account and start saving.”

I ask the minister, are the comments by her official indicative of the ministry’s official policy?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have indicated in this House before, and I will again today, that the time being taken in processing these applications is of great concern to me and that we are working very hard to speed that process up.

Mr. Cousens: The minister’s own officials are laughing at the state of the ministry. In the minister’s own opinion, what should a tenant be doing in this kind of situation?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I cannot comment on the alleged attitude of anyone in the ministry that the gentleman opposite wishes to talk about. I can tell him I am extremely concerned that the tenants of Ontario be appropriately protected and that the rent review legislation works the way it is supposed to. That is very clear to me, and I have made it very clear in this House. I believe the work we are doing now will clear this process up as quickly as is humanly possible.

[Applause]

Mr. Cousens: Clap on. There is no one clapping in Ontario. This minister is not providing a solution to the people who are asking what they should do. This minister has failed to respond to the question of what she is going to do to provide 102,000 affordable rental units in Ontario by 1989, which is an election promise by the Premier. This minister has not responded to what she is going to do about the radioactive soil on McClure Crescent. This minister has not responded to the people in Scarborough who are concerned about the Rouge Valley. What kind of direction is being given that ministry -- Madam Minister?

An hon member: Oh, come on.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am new in this House. I gather matters of tone are not up for discussion about whether they are parliamentary or not.

I must say to the honourable member opposite that when he asked the question about McClure Crescent, I referred it to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). There was a time when Ontario land was under the control of the Ministry of Housing. The responsibility for Ontario land is now with the Ministry of Government Services. It would have been more appropriate for him to have asked that question of either the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten). I consider that to be a responsive answer to his question.

I have indicated in this House a number of times the extent and depth of my concern about the problems we are having with the backlog in rent review. I have also indicated what we are going to do about it. That commitment remains. It is very strong and very firm. I am prepared to say that as many times as it takes for the member opposite to understand.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. B. Rae: To go back to the Minister of Labour, I am sure the minister will be aware, because of the file on this matter, that this is not the first time there has been a work stoppage of a rather major kind at McDonnell Douglas. It is not the first time there has been an inspection. It is not the first time the issue has been raised by members of this party.

He will be aware that my colleague the former member for Sudbury East raised this matter with the ministry on several occasions. There have been at least two work refusals, one of them involving as many as 50 workers, because of the incredible amounts of chemicals found in the cleaning of a wing of a plane.

I wonder if the minister can explain, given this history, why it took the ministry that long to do the inspection it did in 1987, and if I can come back to the very basic point, having gone and dealt with the company over a number of years and seeing what its attitude to health and safety is, why his attitude would be: “Here are some work orders. Here is a long period of time in which to comply with them, but there will be no prosecutions for breaches to the Occupational Health and Safety Act.” Surely that sends out a terrible signal to every single employer. If a large employer like McDonnell Douglas can get away with this, what about every small operator who is not even being inspected by the Ministry of Labour?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There has been a long history and in many respects it has been a deplorable one. The orders that were made against McDonnell Douglas were very substantial indeed, some 212. When the ministry orders the installation of a new ventilation system, it cannot expect that ventilation system will be in tomorrow. The time span was negotiated with both management and the union and agreed upon. In the interim, it was ordered that in specific areas respirators could be used. What my friend the Leader of the Opposition does when he brings up this subject is to create a tone that suggests that somehow the Ministry of Labour is working hand in hand with management.

For example, at the meeting where the union was excluded, our objective during that meeting was to get management to sit down with the union. They would not do that. That is deplorable. We are back there today at the same meetings trying to bring the parties together because our interests are twofold: to ensure that the workplace is safe and to ensure that the workers are not put in danger if and when they return to that workplace. He knows that.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister has to understand that the message he is sending out to every small operation that is never visited by a Ministry of Labour inspector unless the Ministry of Labour gets a scared phone call from somebody from a phone booth who says, “Come and see this plant; it is a mess.” The minister and I both know that those phone calls get made, and people are terrified because they think they are going to get fired.

1430

I can only say to the minister that if he is not prepared to get tough and prosecute a company of the size and reputation of McDonnell Douglas with thousands of workers in a highly organized plant, with the Canadian Auto Workers there, with health and safety inspectors and representatives there from the union, if he is not prepared to deal with that kind of company, in just what kind of situation is he prepared to say, “It is not a question of getting together; it is a question of the Ministry of Labour being prepared to prosecute when prosecutions are warranted”? He is clearly not prepared to do that.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for York South makes a whole bunch of assumptions which are inappropriate and really do inappropriately represent the situation at McDonnell Douglas.

There are two issues here. The first is the issue of putting into place work orders that will result in a safe workplace. That work was done. During a period of 45 days, there were some 212 orders issued.

The second issue, quite apart from that, is whether or not prosecutions will be launched against McDonnell Douglas. In that matter, investigations are still going on. I cannot tell my friend from York South anything, but if he suggests that there are not going to be any prosecutions, he is simply prejudicing an investigation that is still, as I said, ongoing.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

Mr. Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I am sure he will recall that last week I asked him about the appointment of the Liberal Party supporter with a criminal record to the Social Assistance Review Board. The minister said at that time, “This was the most open, the fairest selection process, and it was based totally, completely and entirely on merit.”

Can the minister tell us today, bearing in mind that his ministry received 1,200 applications for 12 positions, whether the same open and fair process was followed in the appointment to the same board of one Vetta Rangan, president of the Southeast Asia Liberal Association?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware of the fact that a board was presently in existence as the new one was being confirmed, and it was open to the existing members of that board to apply for the new positions.

The lady the member refers to fit that classification, and the answer is yes.

Mr. Runciman: We are talking about two Liberal workers out of 12 appointments to the board, so maybe we should try for three.

I am sure that the 1,200 applicants would like to know about our former colleague Ross McClellan, an appointment to the board clearly based entirely on merit. We are not questioning Mr. McClellan’s appointment, but we are wondering, when we talk about the criteria, when Mr. McClellan submitted his application and if it was before the August 14 deadline. If not, I suggest that the minister violated his own guidelines with this appointment.

Is it possible the minister made another appointment without following his open and fair process, namely, that of one Isobel Quenneville, who worked for well-known Liberals Paul Martin and Mark MacGuigan as well as the Liberal Party of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I detect in the member’s question a desire to have a rundown of the background of every one of those members. I presume that the member would appreciate the fact that there is an attempt at some overall balance. I have indicated to him very clearly that merit, fairness and openness were the primary criteria. I stick by that particular comment. I am not prepared to say, however, that there are no members on that board who represent his party, who represent the New Democratic Party, who represent this party. Clearly, there are.

Mr. Speaker: New question. The member for Mississauga West.

AIRPORT TAXIS AND LIMOUSINES

Mr. Mahoney: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I might add on behalf of those of us sitting up here, we think you are doing a terrific job today.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The ground transportation system at Mississauga International Airport, otherwise known as Pearson International Airport and often mistakenly referred to as Toronto International Airport, located in the great city of Mississauga, has been, to say the least, in a state of upheaval over the years because of a total lack of interest by the Department of Transport. They seem to want only to play with the aircraft while the limousines and taxis are simply a necessary evil in their minds.

The Department of Transport recently commissioned a study by Touche Ross, the third or fourth study commissioned by it on this issue, and that study recommends, among other things, that in three years’ time, all existing licences should be stripped from their current owners and put into a hat where they will be drawn, lottery style, and given to the winners of this new lottery.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Mahoney: Will the minister fight this ridiculous proposal from the federal government which, if implemented, will destroy not only the jobs of individuals but also the economic wellbeing of hundreds of Mississauga and Toronto families currently relying on this industry for their living?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I want to thank the honourable member for his question. I know this is a question he has a great deal of interest in and considerable experience of. I am sure every member of this House will agree that it is a very complex issue and one that I have already begun to review, but I intend to consult with my colleagues, especially those from the member’s municipality and from Metropolitan Toronto.

I do hope we can find a resolution to this problem and I will keep the member and the members of this House advised of any developments.

ALACHLOR

Mr. Wildman: In view of the length of the preamble to the question of my friend the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), I can see why the minister complimented him.

I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that his own ministry, along with the ministries of Health, Labour, and Agriculture and Food, appeared before the Alachlor Review Board hearings to request that the federal ban on that pesticide, a suspected carcinogen, be maintained and in view of the commitment signed yesterday in the United States to improve water quality in the Great Lakes basin, will the minister write to his federal colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Wise, urging him to reject the review board’s recommendation that the alachlor ban be lifted?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We have been awaiting this announcement from Ottawa for some time. The Minister of Agriculture, as the member appropriately points out, has the opportunity now to review the decision of the board, to gather any other information he deems appropriate and then to render a decision. We in the Ministry of the Environment are in a position to review that decision, the decision having just come down, and the reasons for the decision in some detail. As soon as I have been able to do that, I will be able to determine a future course of action.

The member is correct that our ministry has expressed some concerns in the past. I think that is one of the reasons that we saw this pause in the use of alachlor last year, which many farmers in the province rely on to undertake their activities as they deem appropriate. We made comments that were helpful, I think, in having this special board set up to review it. Now we would like to look at the detail of not just the decision itself but the reason that the decision was reached.

Mr. Wildman: Since the control of this herbicide would come under the Pesticides Act, which is in the minister’s jurisdiction, and since there is an alternative herbicide available to the farmers of this province, could the minister give a commitment to this House that he will report back when his review is complete? Also, in the event the federal government decides to lift the ban on alachlor, will he make a commitment to the House that his ministry, the Pesticides Advisory Committee, will place alachlor in schedule 1 under the Pesticides Act for use in this province?

1440

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member has appropriately mentioned a number of options which are available. I would like to report back to him and to others who are interested. When that review is complete, I would be pleased to adopt a course of action.

One of the complicating factors in the decision was that there was some reference made to the alternative product the member mentions. There may be some legal or procedural complications in that regard. That is why I want to review carefully the scientific information, as my ministry is doing, and, in addition to that, the regulatory information, to ensure that whatever action we take is not in the long term going to be detrimental to the environment of Ontario. I know I do not sound as precise as the member would like, but there is a reason for that.

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION INVESTIGATION

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. My office has recently been in contact with the Ontario Securities Commission to determine the status of an investigation launched over two years ago in August 1985 into the operations of a company known as PEC Financial owned by Wilf Caplan. We have been stonewalled in our efforts to obtain any information. The commission would not admit there was an investigation under way, let alone the status of the investigation.

We are dealing here with the spouse of a prominent member of the executive council. Is it not incumbent on the Ontario Securities Commission to deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible and to make the findings public?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I will make inquiries and report to the House.

Mr. Runciman: Again, I am perturbed, as many of us are on this side of the House, with the lack of knowledge of many ministers in terms of their various responsibilities. This minister said yesterday that he did not have a briefing note in response to a question from this side of the House. Obviously, they are not on top of their portfolios.

I want to say that this particular situation is not a normal kind of situation. We are dealing with a complaint launched against the spouse of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) by a group of doctors. We on this side of the House want to be assured that there has been no political interference in this process and that the delays in handling this complaint are in no way related to delays in bringing in new conflict-of-interest legislation. We want the minister to assure us that is the case and report back to this House, preferably next week at the latest.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: There has been no interference or delay. As far as the conflict-of-interest legislation is concerned, the honourable member knows it is before the House and we are waiting for the conclusion of the throne speech debate and a variety of motions to set aside business to discuss matters of urgent public importance. I know the House leader intends to proceed with the conflict-of-interest legislation without delay. As a matter of fact, we wanted to pass it in June and it was the member’s party that sent it out to a committee.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning the convert-to-rent program. When this program was announced, the minister of the day stated it was essentially designed to provide moderate-cost rental apartments. The literature provided on this particular program says these costs may actually be lower than for comparable units in conventional apartment buildings. That being the aim of the program, how does she explain that rental units in Toronto under this program are coming on to the market now at $1,100 and $1,200 a month?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The convert-to-rent program was and is designed to give us rental units, to increase the supply of rental units and have them be at more moderate rents. I do not have examples of $1,100 or $1,200 rents. I would be glad to hear about them.

One of the things the member asked me about yesterday was a particular project. Let me tell him here today that the project he mentioned yesterday got seven units. The total support of the ministry was $49,000 and the ministry is indeed investigating the allegations he has made.

Mr. Breaugh: This is a new process here. You ask the question today and you get the answer tomorrow; as long as I figure out the rules of the game.

Here are the examples: on Howland Avenue in Toronto, $1,100 a month for a two-bedroom unit; at 30 High Park Boulevard, for a one-bedroom unit, $850, and for a two-bedroom, $1,100; at 71 Oakwood Avenue, a one-bedroom for $1,200. Does the minister consider this to be moderate housing for people on a moderate income, because by the usual standard of about 25 per cent of one’s income for shelter cost, this would go to people in the $50,000 to $60,000 income bracket. Is this the member’s version of moderate income?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Our commitment to increasing the supply of housing which people can afford is very strong. We have used a variety of programs to do it. In the past, convert-to-rent has worked to do that in various parts of the province. The program is in use not only in Metro Toronto, but also in various other parts of the province. As I said yesterday, one of the things we are always doing is looking at the impact of our programs in different parts of the province.

MEDICAL WASTE

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Over the past week we have read reports about medical waste being found in municipal dumps around the city of Toronto. This waste includes used needles, swabs, blood, human hair and human body parts. Can the minister tell this House if she has instructed her staff to contact the area’s hospitals and medical clinics to investigate where this medical waste is coming from.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In response to the critic in the third party, I was equally distressed to hear about the discovery of medical waste at the landfill sites. I want to say here in the House that I understand and sympathize with the concerns of the sanitation workers. This practice is unacceptable in my opinion. The ministry has initiated a program to help hospitals upgrade their incineration capabilities. This was done last August. Fifteen million dollars has been provided to improve and replace deficient hospital incinerators. This practice is simply unacceptable as it exists today.

Mr. Eves: That is all very well and good, and I quite frankly concur that the minister has the responsibility to determine where this waste is coming from. If the hospitals and medical clinics in the area are using correct procedures, why is this occurring? In light of the fact that over 18 months ago -- in April 1986 -- this study was complete, and that the minister has just said the government has spent some $15 million to correct the problem, how come the problem still exists? What is she doing about getting to the bottom of it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Currently, there are 54 hospitals actively involved in upgrading their equipment or replacing the incineration equipment. Any medical facility dumping medical waste is subject to fines under the Environmental Protection Act. The investigation enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Environment is investigating and assisting in the investigation. I understand there are investigations into these charges which are under way at present and I am awaiting the results of those investigations.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Recent reports by this government indicated that the textile, shoe and clothing industries are among the industries most threatened by the free trade deal. The report indicated there are around 50,000 production workers in these industries in Ontario, 74 per cent of whom are women. These industries have traditionally played a key role in the economy of Cambridge and the rest of the province. I am concerned that all the government appears to be doing is to release reports. I know it says it is opposed and I know it says it wants other people to take some action, but precisely what is this government going to do to stop this deal?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think my friend the member for Cambridge was referring to a report that was recently released by the Ontario women’s directorate concerning the vulnerability of women in particular industries. He has mentioned a few of them.

1450

He raises a very serious problem, and that is the problem of labour adjustment in Canada, whether or not we are contemplating a trade treaty with our friends to the south. If my friend from Cambridge had been in this House a little bit longer, he might well have addressed his question to the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling), and if the Minister of Skills Development were answering that question, I think he would make at least one very important point.

Traditionally in Canada, the business of funding labour adjustment and long-term retraining programs has been the responsibility of the federal government in Ottawa. What is of note is that that government, in contemplation of a trade treaty with the United States, over the past four years has reduced the global budget that it allocates to long-term job retraining from $2.2 billion in 1984 to $1.5 billion in the current fiscal year. Those statistics are deplorable. This suggests that, free trade agreement or not, there will not be funds available for labour adjustment in this country in the future, certainly not at the historic levels we have needed in the past.

Mr. Farnan: I would remind the honourable minister it does not matter how long you have been in this House, no matter what minister you ask a question of, you still do not get an answer.

I have had the occasion to read of an incident in New York City of a woman who was violently assaulted in the court of her apartment complex. The police filed a report of 38 eyewitness accounts. All disapproved of the crime, yet no one went to the woman’s rescue. Their overall response was, “Why should I get involved?”

Will the minister agree that a violent attack is being undertaken on the textile, shoe and apparel industry in Ontario and across Canada by means of a proposed free trade agreement and that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his 95-member observation squad are expressing their disapproval of the attack on traditional industries but are reacting in the same cowardly manner?

Is it not true that the response of this government is simply: “Let someone else save the industries. Why should we get involved?” Is it not about time the minister realized --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If my friend the member for Cambridge is making the argument that every time the federal government reduces spending in one of its areas of constitutional jurisdiction, provincial governments all over Canada ought to step in, I can simply say to him that I disagree with his view of federalism.

Obviously, within our constitutional responsibilities we have been, are and will be doing more, but if he is suggesting that we ought to occupy areas that are the legal, moral and constitutional responsibility of a Conservative government or any government in Ottawa, we are not talking on the same wavelength and I disagree with him.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development about the apparent lack of support he has received from two of his cabinet colleagues in statements they have made, either publicly or in this House.

Particularly, I am referring to the reference of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) to the possibility of job loss and that he chalks this up to the creative language he used, which is quite good: “‘The main thrust is that women who have lost their jobs will have a terribly difficult time re-entering the labour force in a different capacity,’ Sorbara said” -- pretty creative language.

Then his other colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), when referring to the swelled welfare ranks in this province, made further references to the lack of retraining opportunities in this province.

My question to the minister is, given that two-and-a-half-year record and period of time that his government has had to prepare for these kinds of matters, what confidence can we have in him that he is going to be able to develop the programs and spend the necessary dollars so that particularly hard-hit older workers, women and persons needing skills will have their needs met and not be left to the mercy of a welfare program which we do not take any pride in building?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I should say the member should have ultimate confidence in this minister to perform his duties as the Minister of Skills Development. I say that in all earnestness, because my colleagues support that view too, as was well articulated by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). As he stated, we must be very mindful of the fact that the federal government has reduced its contribution in the Canadian job strategy from $2.2 billion in 1985 to $1.5 billion. I think what he is trying to say to the member is that if we did not have that very strong position and commitment to training our people in Ontario, we would be in a very serious situation today.

Mr. Jackson: Instead of lecturing the House, the member should look at his briefing notes. He was supposed to talk about this transition program. That was his cue. The fact is it was mentioned in the preceding throne speech and it was not mentioned in the most recent throne speech. We have this gap of confidence between what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stated during the election and what the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) stated during the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker: Put the question.

Mr. Jackson: We have been subjected to a lecture in this House by the former minister and this minister about moral commitments.

I have the public accounts for the Ministry of Skills Development for 1986-87. We are advised that the federal government has cut back, are we? If the minister examined this document, he will realize that in skills training, the ministry underspent by $17.7 million. In youth opportunities alone, the ministry underspent by $45 million. He can stand in this House and lecture about commitments of government and use the word “moral” when his total underspending in skills training in this province is $64 million.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Jackson: Why did the minister underspend so badly, knowing the problems we have? What confidence can we have in him that he is going to dedicate the resources necessary to resolve the retraining needs of older workers and women in this province who are going to be most adversely affected in the coming year? He has no strategy.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I was rather suspicious when the honourable member asked me, as he said, an easy question or a “cue” to respond -- very eloquently stated. I know that my honourable friend was my critic in Housing and now, I gather, is also the critic for everyone here and also for Skills Development. Of course, the potential for him being the leader of the third party is quite obvious.

The commitment of this government is not to express and to articulate in the throne speech everything that Skills Development will do or that other ministries will do. We know there is no way we can set out the entire mandate of all the ministries here because that would take us another two or three days of throne speech in order to say what Labour does, what Skills Development does and all that. Therefore, if he is looking in the throne speech for the entire mandate of the Ministry of Skills Development, he will not see it there.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. B. Rae: First, is the Minister of Labour aware of the fact that the McDonnell Douglas plant is now completely shut down, there are over 2,000 workers out and there is no indication of any change in time for the next shift? Was he aware of the fact that, when the report came down from the ministry inspectors, the last page of the report reads as follows:

“After preliminary review of certain sections of the report, the union expressed serious misgivings in the content and directions given in the report and indicated that it could not sign the report as it might be misleading to its members”?

Can the minister tell us, when he realized that the union was not satisfied with the intent direction and ability of the ministry and of the government of Ontario, let alone the company, what steps he took to restore confidence between the union and the ministry with respect to its willingness to enforce?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: First, I am aware or at least I have been given an indication that the plant is now closed down and that the parties are not yet meeting. That, of course, is bad news. It is very serious. I was not aware of that last paragraph that the member for York South suggests was in the report, but obviously I will look into that.

1500

PETITION

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Philip: I have a petition signed by 67 persons living in Weston, Rexdale and generally the west end of Metro, to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas the present Liberal government of Ontario has failed to deal with the problem of enacting just legislation in order to have a smoke-free environment in all places of work and all public places, we petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce laws which forbid smoking in all public places and all places of employment.”

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRAVEL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Travel Industry Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am introducing amendments to the Travel Industry Act which would enable the ministry to deal more effectively with registrants who are in serious financial difficulty. In addition to certain housekeeping changes and clarifications, this bill will allow the director of the consumer protection division to apply to court for direction on the disposition of frozen assets of a failing registrant and for an order to appoint a receiver and manager.

I have a second bill to introduce.

PREPAID SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 26, An Act to regulate Prepaid Services.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am pleased to introduce for first reading today the Prepaid Services Act. This important legislation will protect consumers who make upfront payment to fitness, modelling, diet, talent, sports and similar clubs. The bill limits contract lengths and initiation fees, requires monthly payment options, safeguards funds paid before the club opens and provides increased protection to consumers by significantly reducing the risk of financial loss.

I have a third and final bill to introduce.

PREPAID FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 27, An Act respecting Prearranged and Prepaid Funerals.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am reintroducing legislation introduced in the last parliament regarding the Prepaid Funeral Services Act. The legislation calls for the creation of a fund to compensate consumers for losses and it guards against the misappropriation of funeral funds held in trust. It also includes more stringent bonding requirements, a ban on door-to-door and telephone solicitations and other major changes in the way prepaid funeral plans are sold and administered. I believe this will provide the best protection available in Canada to consumers who prepay for funeral services.

CONRAD GREBEL COLLEGE ACT

Mr. Epp moved first reading of Bill Pr71, An Act respecting Conrad Grebel College.

Motion agreed to.

FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Caplan moved first reading of Bill 28, An Act to amend the Funeral Services Act.

Motion agreed to.

TORONTO SKI CLUB ACT

Mr. Lipsett moved first reading of Bill Pr54, An Act to revive the Toronto Ski Club.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am pleased to continue debating the throne speech. This morning I mentioned in my comments pertaining to the agriculture sector that the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes) had won the international plowing match competition but still had not received his award. That occurred at 11:45 this morning, and within 10 minutes he had been presented with his plaque, which he is now holding up, so we can see that members on this side can get action.

The reason I mention this international plowing event is that it is held each year, and maybe some of the new members are not aware of the fact that it is an open competition held annually for any Ontario MP or MPP. Next year it will be in Perth, and I would encourage all members to try to attend if possible. They can start practicing their plowing this week.

When I had to adjourn the debate at noon today, I was expressing my concern about environmental issues, especially issues pertaining to garbage dumps, or I should say the lack of acceptable locations for these sites, and that is the problem.

To emphasize the urgent concern that many municipalities have with this problem, I will make reference to a letter I just received a short while ago. The letter is from Centre Wellington Landfill Site and is signed by the deputy clerk, Don Wilson. It is addressed to me and it requests a meeting with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley):

“In regards to our closure of the Centre Wellington Landfill Site in the very near future, could you please arrange a meeting with our representatives and the Ministry of the Environment to discuss future funding for a proposed landfill site to service the town of Fergus, the village of Elora, the township of Nichol, the township of Peel and the township of Pilkington.”

I have requested a meeting with the minister in the hope that we will have some satisfactory answers, but it highlights the concern that many municipalities have in trying to solve a problem that nearly every member in this House will have in his riding with his municipalities some time, either now or certainly in the near future.

In eastern Ontario, studying waste management for municipalities has become a major growth industry, and that is a sad situation. The Minister of the Environment and the government should be taking the lead in providing our municipalities with the expertise to solve this very serious environmental problem. If we have the expertise and knowledge to send a man to the moon, surely we can solve our garbage problems.

1510

In my opinion, the answer in the riding of Wellington is an energy-from-waste facility located adjacent to the University of Guelph. This would solve most of the waste disposal problems for the city of Guelph and for most of the county of Wellington.

There is some question about the environmental safety of this plant. That can only be answered by the fact that the Ministry of the Environment approved two sites in London, one at the 3M plant and one adjacent to a London hospital. Surely, if a facility such as this can be built adjacent to a hospital that treats cancer patients, there cannot be too much of an environmental problem with it.

Recycling should be encouraged, and the ministry has moved in that direction, but it has a limited potential. Kitchener has tried it but still buries 85 per cent of its garbage. Mississauga has experimented with it, and it is not totally satisfactory. It certainly will never solve the full problem. We need recycling but only in conjunction with energy-from-waste facilities and keeping landfills to the bare minimum.

I would like to move on to the conflict-of-interest legislation. I would like to go on record as saying that I support this legislation but I feel it should be stronger. Ministers and even parliamentary assistants should be required to divest themselves of assets that could be affected by cabinet decisions or at least should be required to have them placed in a blind trust. As the throne speech says, “The people of Ontario must have full confidence in their representatives.” This legislation does not provide that confidence. In fact, as drafted, it will not eliminate conflict of interest but indeed may even accommodate ministers who are in conflict situations. Our citizens deserve better protection than this bill offers.

Dealing with transportation, I would like to mention that there is nothing in the throne speech for western Ontario. There is something, but not much, for northern and eastern Ontario, but nothing for western Ontario. Surely, with the millions of dollars the government collects through the fuel and gas tax and the many other taxes levied under the transportation sector, all parts of our province are entitled to some benefits. I would encourage the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) to provide adequate funding for all parts of the province, and I speak especially for the part I represent, western Ontario.

The Meech Lake accord: the government intends to establish a select committee on constitutional reform to consider the accord. I understand that possibly they will be doing that next week. I look forward to the hearings that will be held by this committee. While I am proud of the fact that I live in the wonderful province of Ontario, I am even prouder of the fact that I am a Canadian. I personally have strong reservations about Canada as a whole being strengthened by this agreement. I firmly support the concept of a strong federal government that speaks for all Canadians.

On the free trade deal, I would like to say that in my personal opinion, too much is being said on this issue now, pro and con. Most Canadians are at a loss to determine whether it is a good deal or not, and I am one of them. I look forward to the final draft to answer many of the questions I have about this initiative, but for the record, I would like to read the summary of a brief on the free trade agreement from the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, signed by Hugh Sharpe, president.

“The Canada-United States free trade agreement will be positive for the Ontario and Canadian cattle and beef industry. The real alternatives for Canada are to forge ahead and confirm this bilateral trade agreement or be prepared to fight an ongoing economic guerrilla war to retain access to the United States market.

“Ontario is the second-largest fed-cattle-producing province in Canada and the largest red-meat-producing province. Receipts from cattle and hogs combined account for one third of farm cash income in Ontario. The industry has demonstrated its ability to compete. The agreement should ensure long-run stability for the industry rather than fighting a rearguard action to preserve access. In our view, there is only one alternative and that is to work towards confirming and improving, where possible, the Canada-United States free trade agreement.”

I have an article here that I am not sure I should read because of earlier events of the day, but I will take a shot at it anyway. It is in the Mount Forest Confederate. “Egremont farmer gives hunters a clear sign that they are not welcome on her land.” The sign says, “Hunters, bastards and other vermin keep out.” If that is unparliamentary, I apologize. Those are not my remarks. The reason I mention it is the fact that hunting is a problem in many of the townships and counties in this province and it is becoming more of a problem now because we have people who do not abide by the legislation we have on hunting regulations.

In the recent past, I think the first week of November, they had a controlled deer hunt in Wellington in zone 80. The controlled deer hunt means that only certain people are allowed to hunt. A certain number of licences are issued and there is a draw conducted to come up with that number. I think it was 788 hunters licensed.

It was brought to my attention that many of the residents in Wellington were denied a licence to hunt in their own area. This created a problem. I contacted the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). He said that they had to go by the draw or the lottery system, that there was not much they could do about it, but that they did try to give a certain number there. The problem we have is that the people who own the land and who should have the right to hunt on it are being denied that right.

Legislation says that if you own 50 acres and live on the land, you will receive a licence. What happens is the family is not brought into that. I think there are two licences issued. There could be three or four boys in the family who like to hunt and some of them will be denied the right to hunt. It becomes a problem for them to say to the hunters, “You use my land but I cannot use it.”

I have tried to encourage the minister to give consideration to the local people. This article states that some land owners do not wish to have hunters on their property. The only way any hunt can be successful is to have the permission of the land owners; the law says so. But you need the goodwill, and in my opinion we can only achieve that goodwill by giving some rights to the people who live in the area and pay taxes. Surely they should have the opportunity to hunt in their own locality.

I might mention about the Ministry of Natural Resources field that there was concern that there was little mention of it; in fact, I could not find anything in the throne speech pertaining to natural resources.

I would like to express my support for the sports fishing industry in this province. I think we should take a look at the experience Michigan has had and try to follow it in many ways. They have an excellent sports fishing industry, and it adds tremendous financial rewards to the tourism industry and to every other facility connected with the sports fishing industry.

In closing, and I am sure the member speaking next will be pleased, I once again express my disappointment at this government’s lack of concrete action in this throne speech. This is a government that procrastinates and delays, a government that sets up committees, commissions and advisory agencies instead of trying to solve the problem. They study it and hope it will go away. By doing so, they delay taking action.

Parkinson’s third law states, “Delay is the deadliest form of denial.” So, by this government’s delay, our young people are denied proper school facilities, our municipalities are faced with growing environmental problems, our seniors are denied equal access to all services.

1520

This is a government that lusted for power. They lusted for power. They asked the electorate for a majority and they were granted their wish. Having received that mandate, the government drafted a throne speech that ends with this paragraph: “With the goodwill of all members of this Legislature, we will continue to help the people of this province prepare for the 21st century.” While it is excellent to prepare for the future, there are many issues that must be faced during the next decade. Surely this government has the responsibility to solve the problems of today as well as to plan for the next century.

I challenge this Liberal Party, with 95 members, to govern wisely and well, in the great tradition of the former Progressive Conservative government, which did so for over 40 years and left a legacy that is the envy of the world. The richest province in all of Canada, a province that is more powerful financially than most of the countries in this world, our province will remain strong only if we have a government that has the courage to govern now, wisely and well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The member for Hastings-Peterborough.

Mr. Tatham: Oxford.

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry.

Mr. Tatham: I just have a comment. I believe on the matter of landfill sites, of which I am afraid I have had some experience, the big situation is to be open, to be upfront, to be honest with the people you are dealing with. The problem is primarily one of human relations: it is not a mechanical problem. We can look after the problems; it is a matter of getting along with the people. If the government wants some information on recycling, the township of South-West Oxford has mandatory recycling. It was given an award just a few months ago. I would think that if people wanted to find out about it, they should go down and talk to them and they would help out.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Just briefly to the member for Oxford, if memory serves me right, it took him over 10 or 12 years to get his landfill site, at a prohibitive cost, many millions of dollars -- $2 million? -- and that is just an example of the problems we are having. It is asinine that we have to go that route.

There is no question in my mind that the day of the sanitary landfill site is over. The farming community will not accept garbage in their area. It is fine to say it is only a site and the garbage is looked after because it is buried; but we do not know what is going to happen 10, 20 or 40 years from now. Containers break down, chemicals start mixing and there can be problems for which our children and our children’s children will pay.

If we use incineration or energy-from-waste facilities, it is not incineration in the sense of burning it but simply a safe way of disposing of it. If we can monitor it constantly so we can tell exactly what is happening at any given time, there should not be a problem.

In fact, when I was down in London looking at the facilities there, they told me there are more serious pollution problems in downtown London standing there for an hour and smelling the fumes from the cars than there is from the plant in a week. So we do have the technology; we do not have to bury it, and people are not going to accept it any longer. I simply say to this government, let us set up a pilot project -- Wellington would be an ideal spot for it -- and see if we cannot make a system that will work, produce energy and solve the problem of waste.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mrs. Nicholas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have had many introductions in my lifetime, and I must say that is one that has given me the greatest honour: “the member for Scarborough Centre.” I would like to congratulate you on your temporary appointment to the Speaker’s chair. I am sure they are going to change many times while I am speaking, and I will have to keep track of it in case it changes from Mister to Madam. I have noted that some people who do go on in this House for an hour, two hours, two days do have to keep track of that. I hope you will stay for the entire duration of my speech, because it will be somewhat briefer than those of my fellow members.

Mr. McClelland: And that’s coming from a marathon swimmer no less.

Mrs. Nicholas: That is right. I am pleased to rise today as the member for Scarborough Centre and to participate in the debate about the speech from the throne. Specifically, I would like to address the effects the initiatives contained in the speech will have in the area of Scarborough Centre.

As the recently elected member for Scarborough Centre, I would like to express my appreciation to the people for placing their confidence in me, and for the first time in 44 years in a member of the Liberal Party of Ontario. I am deeply honoured to be given the opportunity to represent them at Queen’s Park.

Scarborough consists of many people with diverse interests, backgrounds, ages and cultures. It is approximately 30 years ago this month that I moved to Scarborough. At that time there were just farm fields located in our backyard. Now there are subdivisions, and industries are prospering. Scarborough has experienced tremendous growth in this period. It has grown from a township to a borough and now it is a city. I am pleased that I was able to be part of the years of its growth, and that is especially the reason I am proud to represent Scarborough in this great chamber.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the many people who have participated with me in the community over the past 14 years and made it so enjoyable to be involved in community work. In addition, I would like to thank the many workers who helped during the election, knocking on doors, canvassing, telephoning the various constituents, putting up signs -- those people who worked relentlessly with a view to being part of the success of my campaign. Some of those people had a great deal of respect for the policies of the party, and to them I say thank you; but, in addition, a lot of these people had never participated in the political process before, and so they had some faith in me and that is why they came out and supported me. I really do want to say thank you to them for their support.

Most of all, without digressing too far, I would like to thank my parents and my new family member, my husband. My parents have supported me throughout my whole life. They are used to upheaving their lifestyle and participating in the many little endeavours that I have undertaken, but my husband can now tell you about the virtues of spending his honeymoon walking the streets of Scarborough Centre. He did it quite well, quite convincingly and very supportively. I am very pleased he was able to participate in the campaign with me in this way.

I want to reiterate in the House the commitment I made on the many doorsteps during the campaign, that I was willing to work as hard as I could in representing the people of Scarborough Centre at Queen’s Park. That is perhaps why I have listened very attentively to the opposition members -- of whom we have two here to hear my speech -- who have made comments that the government may be somewhat arrogant and complacent now that it has 95 seats.

Mr. Neumann: The opposition members are complacent; they are not here.

Mrs. Nicholas: That is right. What I have found is that a number of us, back-benchers in particular, have tried to say that indeed we are here to work hard. We have constituents as well who have concerns, and they are expressing their concerns to us. We are here to represent them at Queen’s Park. Whether you are a member of the opposition or a member of the government, it is your responsibility to represent your constituents, no matter what party or what side of the government you are on.

That is why I am here today to point out that all the initiatives outlined in the speech from the throne are of importance to Scarborough Centre. I would like to highlight three which I think are fundamental to our future. The first is strengthening our environmental protections. The second is strengthening our educational system, with a renewed emphasis on the quality of education and literacy training. Third is the need for continued growth in support services for the elderly.

Maintaining a safe environment is an important initiative to the people of Scarborough Centre. That is why I am especially pleased to see that the speech from the throne pledges to continue to take a strong and forceful approach to protecting our lands, lakes, rivers, beaches and air. The introduction of a number of initiatives to strengthen the government’s effort to prevent pollution before it starts and to restore the environment where it has been damaged is welcomed.

1530

As many members may already know, in particular the members from Scarborough who are here with us today, Lake Ontario forms the southern border of Scarborough Centre. I invite all members to visit my riding to see the breathtaking view from and of the Scarborough Bluffs. I know many members have probably heard of the white cliffs of Dover and some of them have even had the opportunity to see them. They have become somewhat famous because of the song. After many years of having a close and long look at the white cliffs of Dover, I can say that after careful consideration, I do consider the Scarborough Bluffs equally as beautiful and breathtaking, so I do encourage members to come and see them some time.

We of Scarborough Centre take pride in our lakefront and scenic view and are pleased to hear the government will encourage the responsible development of our waterfront areas to meet the needs associated with tourism, recreation, heritage preservation and industrial development.

I personally find the issue of water quality to be an integral one. I was pleased to see that at a meeting of the Canadian and US representatives in Toledo this week, they reviewed the Great Lakes water quality agreement of 1978. They are revising it to 1987 standards and what we expect our environment and our water quality to be like. It was a first step indeed, but it was good to see they are moving towards zero discharge into the lakes.

It is only a first step, but indeed it is a great step forward in the negotiations which have gone on concerning the Great Lakes water quality, because it is no longer satisfactory that our water be swimmable, drinkable and fishable; we have to make every effort to ensure that it will be sustainable for generations to come.

On education, I am pleased also to see that the speech from the throne re-emphasizes the government’s primary focus of restoring excellence in education and in so doing will involve parents, teachers and administrators in developing new initiatives. The twofold program set out addresses, first, a renewed emphasis on literacy and other basic learning skills to ensure that our children develop the essential foundation for future education and training; and second, the provision of the means to equip our children with the skills, knowledge, creativity and entrepreneurial spirit they will need to meet the challenge of the 21st century.

On the first point, I am pleased to hear the government’s commitment to establish new provincial benchmarks in literacy, languages, mathematics, sciences and social studies while promoting literacy training, particularly for special groups, including older workers. The percentage of people who are illiterate in Canada is staggering. For that reason, I think it important that a program will be implemented to increase public awareness about the personal and economic cost of illiteracy and the importance of dealing with this urgent issue.

On the second point, I am pleased we are ready to take on the challenge to ensure not only that our young people are literate and cultured citizens but also that they have the skills necessary to enable them to lead this province into the 21st century.

Computers and other technologies are indeed the route to the future. It seems like only yesterday when we had an Underwood typewriter and that was thought to be the wave of the future, and I remember only too vividly when the first colour TV came into our home. Now we recognize that it is commonplace for computers to be in most work environments and in some homes, and it is essential that our youth possess the skills necessary to use these new technologies to their fullest capabilities.

Here, I have to express my view that I was a bit concerned with the response of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) to the speech from the throne, wherein he said we were putting too much emphasis on computers in schools. What I would like to say is that it is very valuable and that the children who perhaps do not have the standard of living that is acceptable to most or who do not have the food on the table to keep their stomachs full are the same children who will not be able to afford a computer in their homes. If we do not respond to their needs by teaching them how to use a computer at school, where else are they going to learn it?

I think this shows that there is a proactive and progressive administration of our educational system. It is an exciting dimension and it will enable us to lead ourselves into the next century and beyond.

In regard to the elderly, in the past two years the government has made great progress in providing community supports which enable senior citizens and disabled persons to live at home in their communities, but with the continued growth of our senior citizen population government assistance must also expand. That is why I am pleased that the speech from the throne emphasized the government’s commitment and pledge to continue to strengthen and expand community-based care for senior citizens and disabled persons, including more culturally sensitive services and improved access to transportation.

The strengthening of the integrated homemaker program will assist the large and active seniors community in Scarborough Centre. Seniors make an important and valuable contribution to our community, and I feel it is especially important that we assist seniors to remain in the community and participate fully in community activity. I would like you to know, Mr. Speaker, that the seniors I have spoken to in Scarborough Centre totally agree.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the importance youth plays in our future. There is an ongoing need to continue to stimulate and challenge our youth, which is the future of this province. It is interesting to note that some of the new members around the House right now are younger in years. This is not a new phenomenon, but I do consider myself one of these newer members. As I was saying, this is not a new phenomenon. The member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will recount that his father sat in this House at age 28.

The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) started sitting in this Legislature at age 24. He is still with us today, and I do not think I will recount how many years he has been here, in case he thinks I am disclosing something he would not otherwise disclose. As an informal representative of youth in the House, I think it is essential for us to encourage the government to continue to give a high priority to youth because, when we challenge our youth we challenge the direction of the future of the province.

It is not my intention to take up too much more of the time of this assembly, but I must at least mention some other initiatives of importance in the throne speech: the establishment of a broad network of support that will allow the disabled to reach their full potential and contribute as much as possible to their ability; the development of a health care system which emphasizes the prevention of illness and disease and the promotion of healthy living habits; a first-time home owner savings plan to assist people to purchase their first home. Many young families in my riding have already expressed their interest in participating in this latter initiative.

In concluding, I would like to say that the speech from the throne is just an overview of the thrust that the government is going to take. There is nothing to stop each and every member in this House from presenting special concerns and special issues that are of interest to a specific riding or to a specific constituent.

In recounting some of the issues that are of concern to the people of Scarborough, we are concerned about the beaches and a healthy environment. Parents are concerned about a quality day care system for their children. The desire for increased funding for our educational system to restore excellence in education is evident. Our seniors want a comprehensive and integral plan for a variety of community-based services. Our disabled want special services to enable them to lead independent and productive lives. The small business sector wants to continue to grow.

The proposals and initiatives announced in this throne speech, and in the one delivered in April of this year, clearly reflect the concerns and issues that are of interest to the residents of Scarborough Centre. I am pleased that the government is continuing to take on an open, progressive, accessible and activist role. I will use my energy and determination to work with my fellow members to ensure that the strategies outlined in the speech from the throne will be implemented.

I am not ready to just sit and watch. I have never been a very good spectator and I plan to get involved in the processes which will go on in and out of the House. I appreciate the opportunity to represent the constituents in Scarborough Centre in tackling many of the province’s most urgent priorities, and I look forward to converting this challenge into achievements.

I want to thank you today, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

1540

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation to the chair. I trust that you will carry it with equanimity, as I am sure is your intention.

The speech from the throne is a rerun of unfulfilled Liberal announcements and promises over the past two and a half years. We had hoped that the newly elected government would give us more program details and implementation timetables rather than the mishmash that we received in the throne speech debate. It is time to get down to concrete legislative and budgetary programs for this session.

Instead, the speech just gives us nothing but vague objectives. Laced through the speech like silver balls on a Christmas tree is a collection of new Premier’s councils, select committees, pilot projects, centres of entrepreneurship and other such embellishments.

In addition, the speech refers to hastily put together Liberal wish legislation, which was brought in just before the election but which died in Orders and Notices when the election was called. These have been resurrected in the throne speech, hopefully with sober-second-thought improvements.

Most of these committees and projects that have been proposed could be regarded as delaying actions to put off the implementation date for many of the promises. New legislative initiatives are few and far between and include a federal reject, the home ownership savings plan, which was never very successful in encouraging home ownership, which was abused by people who really were not planning to buy a home and which might enable some aspiring home owners in Ontario to put a down payment on a doll’s house 10 years hence. An estimated loss of $500 million in tax revenue is what this useless program will cost us.

I am very disappointed that the speech from the throne did not contain a word about implementation of the government’s twice-repeated promise to bring in a publicly funded dental care program for seniors. This promise was made in both the 1985 and 1987 campaigns.

I discovered that the omission was no oversight. When I asked the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) when she was going to bring to cabinet a timetable for implementation of these promises, she informed me that it was the responsibility of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). The same day the Minister of Health announced not a timetable but a stall.

Despite the fact that the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens had already published a comprehensive study of a dental program for seniors back in 1980 and had updated it in 1984, the Minister of Health has announced more studies. They may not be completed for two or three years; there is no deadline in her announcement.

In the meantime, thousands of seniors will lose their teeth. They are the age group which has the worst dental problems in the whole population. Most dental insurance plans will not cover them. So much for Liberal election promises and their concern for the health and wellbeing of seniors.

I am also disappointed that there is so little in the throne speech that will solve the housing crisis in Metropolitan Toronto and other major cities. The housing policies of the government try to touch all the special needs of groups, like the disabled, the frail elderly, battered wives, ex-mental patients, single people and homeless people, but they forget about the plain, ordinary family, the single parent, or the student who simply cannot afford whatever rental housing is on the market. That field has been neglected or filled with aid to luxury housing and luxury condominiums.

The ordinary citizens, some on low income, some on modest middle income, cannot even dream of home ownership under the present price situation in the Metropolitan area. They have to go miles abroad and add to our urban sprawl in order to find a home they can afford. New entrants to the market from outside Ontario or new young people ready to leave home are faced with a 0.01 per cent vacancy rate and have to double up or end up in substandard accommodation.

No party which tolerates this situation can call itself a humanitarian party. No party should be considering itself a small-l liberal party when it does not recognize that affordable, decent housing is a human right. The Liberal government is letting too much of our resources go into luxury housing. It is letting too much of our farm land go into housing developments with huge lots which create this urban sprawl I mentioned. That means more expensive services for all of us to pay for and higher transportation costs for everyone.

The predecessor government, the Progressive Conservatives, did much the same thing and stopped building affordable public housing a decade ago. The private sector has not met the need. Too little has gone into nonprofit and co-op housing. We need a party in power which will change our housing priorities, which will see that our resources are allocated on the basis of human need and the right to shelter. Ten thousand homeless in the city of Toronto is a disgrace and 28,000 people on the waiting list for Ontario Housing Corp. indicates the tip of the iceberg as far as need goes. Many do not even apply because they know the waiting lists are so long.

The minister is trying various incentive programs and one of those is the convert-to-rent program which encourages people to take unused space in their homes and convert it to apartments or convert the house into duplexes and triplexes, but I have had disturbing reports about the administration of this program.

One home owner, who had a good seven-foot basement which would be sufficient for a basement apartment if it was within the zoning and who had two rooms on the third floor unused, applied for the subsidy for convert-to-rent. He received a home visit from a representative of the ministry and he was told what sort of alterations he would have to make to comply with the building code and the fire regulations.

He was prepared to make some renovations, as long as they appeared reasonable. Some of the requirements sounded pretty costly for a renovation process rather than an initial construction of a basement apartment. He was told he would have to enclose his furnace and install a steel door. As I understand it, steel doors could cost up to $5,000. However, even though he was prepared to look into the costs of the requirements outlined and probably go ahead if he found them within his means, he was told that there was no guarantee that he would get a grant even after he had done all the renovations. It would still have to be considered along with 100 or maybe 1,000 other applications and the money might run out before his was considered.

1550

This cooled his ardour to contribute to alleviation of the housing shortage very quickly, but he has since learned that some other applicants who had already done most of the conversion work to change a single-family dwelling into a duplex or a triplex without calling on the ministry to come and tell them what requirements should be met, had actually applied for and received grants. Even though the renovations may not have been entirely up to the building code in all details, they could get a committee of adjustment to OK what had been done.

As long as the fire department OK’d it, these people were considered eligible for an immediate grant. It appears that the ministry is so desperate to have some of its projects financed as soon as possible -- so that it can show it is spending this money that has been given to it that it is willing to accept second-class standards from people who have already started the work without consulting them, but has put all sorts of roadblocks in the way of people who are ready to consult them, start from scratch and who would get no guarantee that they will ever get their money back. So I think that program has to be looked at much more carefully.

I do want to spend a little time on free trade. I think the free trade debate is the most important debate of this century. Its outcome will affect the future of Ontario and Canada for the next 50 years. It is difficult to judge the impact of the trade deal put before us by Mr. Mulroney because of its long-term effects and because we do not yet have the final text. There may be further negotiations which may change the text.

We also face world uncertainties in financial markets, arms control and environmental conditions over the next decade or two. However, there is not much doubt about the thrust of the Mulroney-Reagan deal. It is not tree trade; it is not an ordinary free trade treaty between two nations. It is a hastily put together deal for the political purposes of Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Reagan. It is the kind of deal which emerges when political objectives take precedence over economics and social effects. it is the kind of deal which emerges when unrealistic deadlines are set. It is the kind of deal which emerges when the negotiators are unequal in power but desperate for a deal.

There have been a lot of studies of the effects of this proposed trade deal on our economic development, the gains or losses in jobs in different sectors and our own independence both economically and culturally. Unfortunately, many of the studies should be ignored because they are biased or based on unreal premises. The Economic Council of Canada’s study, for example, is based on a model of perfect competition which does not really exist. The large multinational corporations approach it from the point of view of how to increase their foothold in Canada. Our financial institutions seek to increase their foothold in the United States.

The free trade deal does not meet the question of what do we gain and what do we lose from this deal. Are we giving up too much?

What we are giving up is crucial to the future of Canada and Ontario. First, we are opening up our whole economy to US takeovers, particularly in the financial field, the energy field and our cultural industries.

Second, we are putting our social programs at risk when we have no definition of what is considered a subsidy which can trigger a US challenge to a Canadian industry’s pricing.

Third, we are accepting a considerable short-fall from an adequate dispute settlement mechanism, which all parties had considered was a prerequisite. We are not protected from American protectionist legislation and actions, only from their own laws, which they may or may not change, and whether or not those laws are being observed. We are not protected from nontariff barriers, which have blocked our trade in the past, even when no tariffs were in effect against our goods.

Fourth, we are accepting conditions which will curtail our sovereignty. We are in fact becoming part of a North American economic union. It appears that we may be asked to accept a limiting of our opportunities to distribute Canadian films through the facilities of the film distribution industry, which is largely dominated by American companies.

We are going to be a minority partner in a North American economic union. Our ability to develop our distinctive social programs, our ability to provide economic incentives to industry and our own ability to maintain our culture are all in jeopardy. In addition, hundreds of thousands of jobs will disappear. Women will be the largest group to lose jobs because of the fields in which a majority of them are employed.

For these reasons, we must stop this deal. I urge all members of this Legislature to join in the battle. I expect a stronger response from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) than we have had to date. I welcome the strong campaign being put on by the Ontario Federation of Labour and its affiliates to alert us to the implications of the Mulroney-Reagan deal. I urge all Ontario residents to make their voices heard in rejecting what is, in effect, a sellout of Canada and Ontario. I urge them to write to their local MPP and MP and send copies to the Prime Minister and the Premier. I think that is the least we can all do to get involved in stopping this deal.

There are two or three other matters I want to deal with. One is the statement by the Treasurer yesterday on the Wilson income tax and other tax proposals, which have not yet been implemented, and on the outlook of the Treasury for the coming few months or a year until the new budget comes in.

In that statement yesterday the Treasurer said that his “staff will continue discussions with federal officials on the proposed national sales tax,” which is in those tax reform proposals. The proposal was premised on a possibility of a joint federal-provincial sales tax and possibly an extension of the base to all sorts of things not now covered, but in particular the suggestion was made that it might be applied to food.

I urge the Treasurer to indicate clearly to this House his position on a sales tax on food and to be sure that his staff is well aware of his position. I hope it is one of resolute opposition to such a tax, in view of the widespread concern about the effects of such a tax on seniors and low-income people. In his statement he did say that he thought low-income people would be looked after through some form of adjustment, but he did not specifically state that he was not considering a tax on food as part of the discussions with Mr. Wilson’s officials.

1600

He also talked in his statement about adjustments in the corporation tax, but he did not accept the premise that he should be changing the emphasis in this province from reliance on personal income tax to more reliance on corporate income tax. We do have our own Corporations Tax Act, so we are free to adjust our corporation tax in whatever way we want; but in the past few years, under both the Progressive Conservative and the Liberal governments, there has been a decreasing emphasis on corporation tax and increasing emphasis on personal income tax.

Over the next few years, the Treasurer is going to need $2.5 billion to implement the promises he made in the election. Where is he going to get this money from?

I say he must get it from a fairer tax system, and that means revising the present tax system and the proportion paid by the corporations, but he is talking about trying to jibe his corporation tax with the federal tax. He is going to jibe his tax with the tax of a Progressive Conservative government which is tied to the big business interests. He is not going to make his tax fit the needs of Ontario and fairness to Ontario taxpayers in both the low-income and the middle-income groups. He is not going to see that the corporations pay a substantially larger share. I think that is something he should be reconsidering when he comes to produce his budget next spring.

There is one other area I wanted to comment on and it relates to health care. The throne speech made a great deal about a new approach to a healthy Ontario, and I certainly support that aim. I support the idea of more preventive care and I support the idea of an extension of services to areas that are not now covered, such as greater provision of wheelchairs and prosthetic appliances to the entire population who may suffer disabilities and need these. At the moment, the Liberal government has simply raised the age limit for supplying prosthetic appliances and so on from 18 to 23. Many more people need wheelchairs and assistance of various kinds. Any one of us could become disabled tomorrow, and most of us would not qualify under that age limit.

In the throne speech it was stated that the government will look at further emphasis on the provision of health care services through health service organizations and community health centres. During the election campaign in August, the Premier pledged to double the number of individuals served by HSOs and CHCs over the next five years.

HSOs and CHCs have been the forgotten children in the Ministry of Health, even though Mr. Grossman, back about six or seven years ago, said he was going to put strong emphasis on this different form of delivery of health services. It is, in effect, a challenge to the dominance of the fee-for-service model in our current health care services.

The statement in the throne speech emphasizing that the government was going to put much more emphasis on this form of delivery would appear to indicate a conversion on the road to an election, because the Peterson government was not really promoting these facilities to any great extent before that. Has it finally abandoned its policy of lipservice to promoting this more efficient and economical form of health care delivery? Is it ready to make this small challenge to the fee-for-service health model? I hope so and that it will start meeting this target in the next year, not by 1992 when it plans to double the facilities. They are so small now that doubling is not a very big promise.

I hope we will see more action to increase encouragement and assistance to individual physicians who wish to switch to this form of health delivery. I hope the ministry will not just concentrate on developing health service organizations and community health centres in hospitals. It may get somewhat larger numbers of patients covered through this procedure, but it will be neglecting the development of these facilities for physicians in private practice who wish to follow this form of health service delivery. We must provide for increases in the availability of these services both in public hospitals and in private practices in the communities across Ontario. One hopes these facilities will develop and be operated with community-run boards. That is true democracy in the health care system and that is something we should be looking at.

Those are the main things I want to deal with today. There are many other subjects I could cover, but I hope that these ones will at least receive more attention than they have so far in the throne speech.

The Deputy Speaker: Would some members like to comment? If there are no comments, would some member like to speak in the debate?

Mr. Cureatz: I would be delighted to participate in the debate on the speech from the throne. I have had the opportunity of contributing my remarks to these august halls over, I guess, 11 humble years now, and it is always a great privilege and excitement to participate in the very invigorating debate. I appreciate that all my colleagues who are here are no doubt making vigorous notes. I am very confident that later on this evening those members who missed some of my remarks will be reviewing them in bed just before they turn off the lights.

For those members who are not here, I know they will be getting copies of Hansard. Pam, you will ensure everyone gets Hansard. They will be sending it to their colleagues who miss my remarks today and will make sure over the weekend that they will be reviewing all these words of wisdom so that they will be able to evaluate some of the concerns I have. I know Steve is one of them because he has heard me before. He will work them into his thoughts and concerns and eventually they will form part of the policy of the great government of Ontario, of which we have seen a portion in the speech from the throne.

I would be remiss, of course, not to acknowledge and thank most heartily all the fine people of Durham East who saw fit in their capacity on September 10 to mark their little X beside a particular name so that I might have the opportunity of coming back to these chambers and speaking. I thank not only those individuals who voted for me but all of the constituents of Durham East, because as partisan as we can become at election time, when we are here we are working for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to represent our particular constituency and, of course, all the people in Ontario.

I know many members are concerned as to where Durham East is. I think it is only appropriate that I refresh all their memories so that they have a better working capacity of the boundaries of Durham East. It is unique in terms of its territory. There was a time with the old Durham East when I had a portion of the city of Oshawa, almost half. It gave me great annoyance from time to time when anyone said, “Mike Breaugh, the member for Oshawa, represents the city of Oshawa.” That was not the fact. Indeed, I had a good portion of the north end of the city.

As fate would have it, under redistribution that fine portion of the north end of Oshawa has now been taken over by a new Liberal member, the member for the new riding of Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong). If I do say so, rather humbly, he will have large shoes to fill in terms of the representation of that area. We are all looking forward to the kind of impact he will be making in the years to come in representing that great portion of the former riding of Durham East and that area I did not have the opportunity to represent: Whitby.

1610

In any event, the new riding of Durham East, if members can follow these directions, takes in that area of the town of Newcastle. The town of Newcastle is not one little municipality; it is a large area that was instituted by a particular government, in what was then termed regionalization. So we have regional government out there, the region of Durham. It brings to mind, time and time again, how the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), now Minister of the Environment, would continually criticize these nasty regional governments when he was over there on the opposition front bench. He would say: “When are they going to be disbanded? When the Liberals form the government, I am going to fix that all up.”

Oddly enough, we are now in the third year of a Liberal administration in Ontario and I have not once heard the Minister of the Environment stand up and say: “Remember I used to talk about regional governments all the time? Well, now that I am in cabinet, I am going to do something. I am going to fix up those regional governments. I am going to disband them, as I used to say I would all the time in opposition.” He has not said that, and I am waiting with great anticipation for that day when maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) will stand up and make that announcement in terms of the corrections of regional governments as the then member for St. Catharines, now Minister of the Environment, used to say all the time.

In any event, I have the town of Newcastle, which runs from the east boundary of Oshawa almost to Port Hope, over to my next neighbour, the member for Northumberland (Mrs. Fawcett), who, of course, I congratulate on her election September 10.

My colleagues will find it always pays to be friendly with neighbours, because sometimes a member will need help on particular issues and it is always worth while to have a good working relationship -- except at election time, when we becomes enemies again. I even got along with the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) from time to time, albeit our ridings are only about 1,000 miles apart.

In any event, it goes north into a particular area I had not represented before, one then represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), with whom I had got along very well: namely, the township of Manvers. Manvers township is pretty well a rural community with smaller hamlets by the names of Pontypool, Bethany and Janetville. A new addition to my riding is a particular area called the township of Scugog, which runs north from Oshawa and takes in a community better known as Port Perry.

We cannot be remiss by forgetting a portion of the town of Whitby, though everybody is going to think the member for Durham Centre represents the town of Whitby. Actually, I have probably one of the finest areas of the town of Whitby and that is north of Taunton Road. I know the member for Durham Centre held great grievance when I had to take over that particular area. I guarantee the member that particular area, especially the Cullen Gardens and Miniature Village, a noteworthy tourist attraction for our part of Ontario, will be finely represented by yours truly. I know that in the years to come the member and I will be getting along marvellously well in our concerns for the town of Whitby. I have some remarks in store for us later in terms of some hostile problems we are encountering.

Now that members have a working knowledge of the great riding of Durham East, I want to say to all members present that I once served in the humble capacity of Deputy Speaker -- for about four years. I got a working knowledge of various areas of the province and, indeed, of members’ particular communities. When you sit in that chair hour after hour, day after day, month after month and, dare I say, year after year, you become familiar with the various problems of Ontario and the various concerns that individual members have for their constituency.

I can appreciate that under redistribution the ridings are not particularly the same, but I assure the members that I have an appreciation of general concerns discussed by members during throne speech debate or budget debate or a question in question period, in which I have yet to see a lot of the newly elected Liberal members participate. I know there will come a time when members will get used to the system, will be standing up vigorously fighting for their particular constituency and with concern for the people of Ontario.

In any event, with some prompting from the back, it behooves me to make a couple of comments to the new members about their role here in the assembly. Not that I want to take on a fatherly figure, but it is interesting to see a different tone set in the assembly. I bet the press notices it a great deal. In the old days of Conservative rule, under the minority government in 1977, when I was elected, and the majority government in 1981, there were still enough opposition members to make the place a little lively in terms of criticism by the opposition, responses by the ministers and support of the ministers by back-benchers, which I had some experience participating in for about eight years in various spots way over there. So I have some feeling and affection for the concerns the members might have sitting in their particular places.

In any event, the point is it is going to take at least a year -- who knows? -- for those members who are slower in the system, like the member for Durham Centre, it may take two years -- to adjust to the process, and that adjustment can be most devastating. Why can it be devastating? Because, let us face it, all the members have fought very hard to get here. They have worked hard continuously during that election campaign.

Mr. Wildman: Has this anything to do with the throne speech?

Mr. Cureatz: I will say to the member for Algoma, they worked hard in the campaign -- you have to be careful -- from time to time, people say you have to centre in on the topic at hand, and the topic at hand is the speech from the throne. Of course, the new members all fought vigorously during the election to get elected so they could come here and speak to the speech from the throne. Notice how you have to work that in periodically so you are not called to order and asked to centre in on the issue at hand.

At any event, once new members learn the process in terms of the office, the phones, constituency offices, staff, finding out that all the civil servants actually do not know who they are, they will realize then that all their capabilities in terms of their particular professions, whatever that might have been: lawyers, doctors, businessmen, teachers, whatever the area of expertise -- and now they are sitting here quietly wondering what kind of input they can have in the government of Ontario.

I had those same kinds of frustrations as a newly elected member -- it seems like yesterday -- back in 1977, because back in those days we had the God Emperor running everything here, and he ran it adequately and with a tight fist; it was his show. One would not dare step out of line, not one bit, albeit when I was Deputy Speaker I called him to order from time to time, and that was the end of my political career. It was a lesson well learned for me, I might add. However, time heals.

When you are sitting and evaluating the input that the members have, as I did, I decided the particular front-benchers are running the show. Do not let anyone fool you; they are running it here, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Nowadays you have to call them horsepeople, I guess. There is the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the Premier and the government House leader (Mr. Conway). Be careful of the House leader; he is the master of intrigue around here, especially for the newly elected members. He can sweet-talk those people into anything and everything and they will walk away happy until another three or four months later when they are angry again and go and approach him. Who else? How could we forget the Treasurer, the most honoured and respected member in these chambers who has served his riding --

[Applause]

Mr. Cureatz: I admit to that. I give full credit to the Treasurer and his family for the dedication and representation he has made to this province in the years he sat on this side in opposition. Another former great Liberal member, Harry Worton, used to say to him and to other members, “Hang in, Bob, it is a long road.” It surely is a long road. Lo and behold, he is now Treasurer and Deputy Premier.

Upon my evaluation, sitting in various spots, way over there and there -- I never had the chance of sitting here except in opposition -- and some spot over there, I decided in terms of my input, the strategy would be to look after my riding. I was quite impressed -- I am sorry she has left -- with the newly elected member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Nicholas) who defeated a very fine colleague of ours, Bill Davis. Reverend Davis made a very strong contribution to this assembly in his role as critic for Education. Needless to say, we are extremely sorry he was defeated, but we are so pleased that a newly elected member is here, so full of vim and vigour, to take over her particular responsibility.

1620

I was quite impressed when she said: “Well, so there is a huge government. There is a whole pile of newly elected back-benchers. That does not mean that we are not concerned.” From time to time, this party over here claims to be the most concerned of all of us, which annoys me to no end; but that is a speech for another day, because we will have lots of days left for long speeches.

In any event, I was quite impressed when she said, “It does not limit us from making representations on behalf of our constituents.” Actually, I give her credit. I mean, she came to that within a couple of weeks; it took me a couple of years to figure that out. I said to myself, “Self, my priority is going to be my riding, because those are the people who elect you.” If you look after your constituents, be it the birth certificates, because someone has to take a quick trip down to Disney World in Florida on a holiday, and he has to get his passport or something; or workers’ compensation; or fixing up the potholes; or changing the lights -- it does not matter. The name of the game for me, I decided, was to look after my riding. I have always held that as a priority, because I will tell members, governments can come and governments can go.

It reminds me of law school, when you sat in on your first day and they said, “Now, you take a look at the person to your right and you take a look at the person to your left, because two of you are going to be gone when this is all over.” I have news for all of these newly elected members: take a look on each side, and two of them are going to be gone because, as much as I respect the Premier, there is no way he is going to win 95 seats in the next election. There is no way. I will put this question to members: do they think Brian Mulroney is going to win 211 seats in the next election?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Cureatz: There; they got it. No, I do not think he is going to win it, either. I do not think the Premier is going to win 95 seats in the next election. Do members know what that means? That means some of them are going to lose, so they had better get ready for that day. We are all happy now, but on election night in 1992, when the votes are coming in, they will be watching the tally coming up and saying to themselves: “I guess that is it for me. There goes my quick political career at Queen’s Park.”

But they can help stop that. My experience has been that by returning back to look after your particular constituency, making sure you have pleasant staff in your riding office and your Queen’s Park office, and even in the event that you cannot get the kind of answer your constituent wants -- I mean, they always want a good, positive response
-- even if you cannot give it, I have found it best to be upfront with them and say: “Look, we just cannot do it. I have done everything humanly possible: I have written letters; I have gone to the minister; I have cried everywhere. I am sorry, we just cannot do it.” I have always found that if you take that approach -- they will be angry at you, no doubt, that you were not able to do anything, but --

Mr. Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I appreciate very much the lesson in how to behave at Queen’s Park, in how to be a politician and in how to get re-elected, but I thought we were here to debate the throne speech and I would like to hear some of the member’s comments on that speech.

Mr. Cureatz: I am glad the member has brought that to my attention, because the whole aspect of this, as I was saying before, is that members opposite are going to have to work very hard to convince their constituents that this throne speech is the be-all and end-all, because they have a tough position over there now. I have been there. It is easy for me; I am in opposition. I can say to my constituents: “Those nasty Liberals. It is that big majority government at Queen’s Park. Ninety-five people and they have not been able to resolve all these difficulties.” When the honourable member from wherever, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. MacDonald) -- am I close? The member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), my old home town. I am hurt to the quick to think someone from my own home area of Cooksville has stood up and questioned my integrity in terms of my debating the speech from the throne.

In any event, carrying on with great vigour, I want to say to the member that he is going to have a tough position, because there are some of these aspects, which we are going to be getting to -- do not worry, there is lots of time; he can go out for a coffee and come on back, watch me on TV; we will still be here -- because he is going to be having constituents call up, and he is going to be frustrated, just like the rest of the members, and they will be demanding: “What about the workers’ compensation? Look at the difficulties I am having here.” He is going to have them, because I have had them for years, and it is frustrating. We are all going to continue on with those kinds of problems. What is he going to say? “Well, gee whiz, I am just a back-bencher.”

But his constituents will not appreciate that. He has been elected to serve them. He has been elected under this new reform government. How did the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) term it? It is the new Red Army to get this province in action, to get it going in terms of these problems people are having. I tell him that he is not going to be able to resolve them all. He is going to have to sit there quietly and take the abuse from his constituents on behalf of the Premier and the cabinet he is supporting.

I have a way out for some of them on this throne speech, some aspects of which we will be getting into later, about the wine industry, about health, and someone was talking about education earlier. Do not worry; we will be touching base on some of these. But there is a way out and it is something similar to what has taken place in the English parliamentary system. In England -- I do not know
-- they have 850 members of Parliament. It is some horrendous number but they only have 30 or 40 people in cabinet. For the back-benchers in England, they have come up with a neat process.

One hundred or 200 of them get together and they are a really strong lobby group in terms of concerns they have about the direction the government, the Prime Minister, takes from time to time. You know what? It grieves me no end to think that I should possibly have followed that route in terms of myself and one or two other colleagues who are still in the Conservative caucus. We should have taken that kind of approach to reflect some thoughts and concerns, albeit a little critical of the government. After all, that is what we have been elected for by our constituents, to do the best we can for the people of Ontario. So they have a way out. I am going to give them the secret right now, free; I will not even send them a bill.

The way out is for three or four of them, or nine or 10 of them -- they can do it because there are so many of them. It is a great opportunity. If they had only 60 or 70 members they would not get away with it, but they have 95. They are not all going to make the cabinet. It is impossible. The Premier has selected his particular individuals who have been with him for a long time. You have to give those people credit. They hung in when they were in opposition. They fought under dire circumstances over the years. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) is one of them. I can remember him asking question after question during question period. The member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan) blew it. I told him what he should have done to get in cabinet but he did not listen. We will get to him later.

In any event, what they can do to effect some of these aspects of the throne speech is for three or four, or nine or 10 or 15 because there will be safety in numbers, to get together and call their own little meetings.

Mr. Callahan: Are you suggesting a conspiracy?

Mr. Cureatz: Of course, they will then have a big fight about who is going to chair the meetings because that person will have some power and responsibility, but they should bite the bullet on it and make a decision and some of them get together. I will give them a year. They should learn the system. Then after that they will see how the whole show works. Fifteen of them should get together, have their own little group and express some concerns that are not being addressed.

They cannot address all the concerns. There are a lot of problems out there. Do they think they can handle everything at once? They need some guidance and direction. We cannot do it all, as good as we are in opposition. There are a lot of those people. Those people have good ideas in terms of their past experience and they will be able to --

Mr. Callahan: Where are your friends?

Mr. Cureatz: The member is annoying me. He should not get me going on his riding. She is coming back. I gave her all those laurels and now she comes back.

They can get together and draw up a list of concerns of areas where they want some concentration. Then, if they read the rules of procedure of which I have some working familiarity, they will see that they are entitled to what, the member for Scarborough Centre? To ask --

Mr. Callahan: Stand up.

Mr. Cureatz: Stand up. He has done it before but he plays cutesy. He checks with the minister before he asks a question. I am saying that they should sort it out among themselves to stand up in question period during rotation and ask some of those stimulating, inquiring questions of the various ministers about concerns they have because in that way they will be looking not only this way but then they will also have to start looking over their shoulders to see where it is all coming from.

Mind you, the Premier can intimidate them and say: “Listen, this speech from the throne is fantastic. How can you be critical of it? You have to be supportive. Do not ask us any embarrassing questions. Do not get together in a little” -- the minister is already looking. He is getting a little nervous. There is sweat on his brow already, thinking of the possibility, the potential that is here for all the newly elected Liberal back-benchers.

It is wonderful what has taken place in the ability they have to perform on behalf of the people of Ontario in these chambers -- it is phenomenal -- acting in terms of another watchdog of the cabinet, of the executive council, of the administration. How many people is he going to shuffle out of cabinet at a cabinet shuffle? The next shuffle is when? A year and a half or two years? Five or six people may go.

1630

Listen, there were some nice fellows who were in cabinet: the member for Kingston and The Islands, with whom I got along very well when I was critic; the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) and the member for London North (Mr. Van Home). The member for London North and I were elected together. We served on many committees, travelled all around the country, and he did a good job in that ministry.

It is a tough business. The Premier had to make some pretty rough decisions, so boop, away they go. There goes their political career in terms of cabinet, but that is not to say they cannot perform a worthwhile function here in the House in terms of representation of their constituency and maybe getting together with all the newly elected individuals.

Let us take a critical look at what is happening in the front bench because the speech from the throne, as we have heard already from a few of my colleagues and the official opposition, is not the be-all and end-all of this first parliamentary term. That is for sure. There is going to be lots more to come. We already saw the signs.

The Treasurer gave us the signal. What was the signal? The stock market. I almost ran into the guardrail when I heard that. I said, “Bob, I cannot believe you are saying that.” He indicated that because of the crash of the stock market there may be some aspects of the speech from the throne that will not be able to be fulfilled.

I want to say something to the member whom I did interrupt the other day and I feel a little bad about that; but on the other hand, he was just grating my skin when he was talking about the wine industry. I believe he beat my colleague Peter Partington, a great member from the Niagara Peninsula. I heard about that particular member’s campaign. Apparently it was great. He had signs everywhere. He blew the whole bundle on signs, I guess.

Lo and behold, I could just hear the debate during the campaign, the old throne speech already. The debate was: “We have got to elect Liberals. We need the Premier to stand up to that free trade pact. We have to have someone to stop Mulroney.” I bet one or two members right here said the same thing. Hands up! Who said during the election “We have got to stop Mulroney”? I hear some laughter over there. I know they all said that; there is no doubt in my mind.

During my all-candidates debate, the Liberal candidate said the same thing -- Diane Hamre, a very fine candidate, I might add -- but, lo and behold, after she was through with that, I brought to everyone’s attention that it amazes me how in terms of federal jurisdiction she thinks the Premier of Ontario is going to have so much to say about it.

I give credit to the Leader of the Opposition who indicated that he would rather have his 18 and a half members elected --

Mr. Wildman: What do you mean, 18 and a half?

Mr. Cureatz: Sorry, 19. I was just testing to see if the member was awake. He would rather have them elected on credibility than on a fraud perpetrated by the Premier running all over the place saying he is going to stop the free trade agreement.

Now he is telling us, gee, wait, maybe he does not have the power; and that may be the bottom line. I saw it on television too one night at 11 o’clock on the news. There he was banging his fist and talking about the bottom line. I said, “Oh, boy, here we go; the bottom line.”

I do not know where Larry was on that one either.

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: Where is Larry now? Poor Larry left this humble chamber at whatever the salary we are getting to a humble, I heard, $100,000 or $200,000 a year. I do not know who the winner or loser was on that one.

In any event, I want to say that in terms of free trade, I can remember the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) last week standing up and talking about representing his constituents and talking about the free trade agreement and I did interrupt him, but I waited until right near the end of his speech to allow him the opportunity of a little more time to respond to some of my concerns. Of course, after rotation he has only two minutes, so I thought I was doing him a favour. In any event, I was interrupting him and I apologize for that.

On the other hand, I was awfully frustrated. I do not envy the members from Niagara. The member for Lincoln (Mr. Pelissero) is one of them here. He beat Phil Andrewes, the great Conservative from down in that area. I can imagine those members running around the Niagara Peninsula saying: “We have to protect the grape growers. We have to protect the wine industry. How are we going to do that? We have to make sure that we have a large majority Liberal government at Queen’s Park. We have to make sure about the bottom line. We have to make sure that the free trade pact does not go through.”

Here we are, they are elected and now the Premier is waffling a little bit, walking the fence a little bit. We know he is walking the fence: and why is he doing that? He does not have the power particularly, plus he is a little cautious. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) said that what is good for Ontario is good for the rest of Canada, and suddenly we heard from some other Premiers across Canada being critical of what Ontario is saying. Why is the Premier sensitive to that? Ask me why.

Mr. Velshi: Why?

Mr. Cureatz: Why? You see, he wants to know.

Because he wants to keep his options open. There might be a possibility of running federally. The Premier is very good; he speaks French; there is always that possibility.

Listen, I can remember back in the Davis years when Bill Davis was thinking of running federally. Was he; was he not? Remember the statement, “I have no plans that have plans that...no plans” -- I can never repeat it.

In any event, I bet dollars to doughnuts his administration, his cabinet members, were very cautious in their speeches not to alienate other parts of Canada in the event that the then Premier would want to run federally, to keep his options open.

The same thing is happening here, the games within games, the wheels within wheels, and the Premier wants to make sure he does not annoy too many people all across the country about fat-cat Ontario.

That goes back to the members from the Niagara Peninsula. They are going to have a big job, a very big job, of meeting with their constituents in their riding offices, listening to them on the telephone, meeting them with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), who I am sure would be more than pleased to meet with the representatives from that area and talk about the concerns, talk about the possibilities of what is going to take place to the wine industry; but lo and behold, shrugging their shoulders and saying, “It’s those nasty, nasty federal Conservatives who are bringing this agreement and we can’t do much about it.”

Their constituents are going to go back, scratching their heads like that and saying: “Gee whiz, I sort of had the feeling during the campaign that these Liberal members from our area were going to really fight, that they were going to have some power. If we put a large-majority Liberal government into Queen’s Park, it is going to stop that free trade agreement. They were going to protect the wine industry and the grape growers in the Niagara Peninsula.”

It is not going to happen, and as a result, at the next election they just might be in some trouble in terms of the credibility they are going to have when they say: “Elect me and we are going to do such-and-such. We are going to do all these aspects under the speech from the throne.” Those constituents are going to say: “Gee, wait a minute. We heard that about the free trade agreement and how we’re going to stop it, and the bottom line; and nothing happened.”

We had a great debate and we set up a committee in the Legislature. We will go around the province and maybe tour the country to have input and concerns, but the bottom line is going to be that there is not going to be much taking place from the Premier’s office or his administration in terms of that free trade agreement.

Mind you, he is going to have a lot of help. If you have not noticed, the Toronto Star certainly has been bringing it to everybody’s attention day after day on the front page, and I had the opportunity of listening to the CBC radio show Morningside, with Peter Gzowski, who has a very informative show from time to time. He had two editors on, one from the Globe and Mail and one from the Toronto Star, about their positions on free trade. I have forgotten the gentlemen’s names, but it was just last week, we all can look them up if we want to.

One of the editorial writers said, “We are against the free trade agreement, and don’t forget, the Premier of Ontario got this huge mandate to stop it.”

On the other hand, as we all well know, the Toronto Star certainly gave him some assistance during that campaign. Day after day it was pretty tough for the humble little member in Durham East to compete with the coloured front page of the Premier of Ontario flipping flapjacks and indicating this is a great campaign that he is having.

On the other hand, the Globe and Mail, in terms of its editorial comments, is taking the other side -- which I guess we have all seen here -- in praise of the free trade pact.

I suppose both papers are performing their particular function in at least creating interest, bringing people’s attention to the particular topic and discussing the free trade issue, as has been discussed in the speech from the throne.

But I am advising a lot of the newly elected Liberal back-benchers that they are going to have a tough job when the Premier is not able to produce on a lot of these things; as the official opposition as well as my colleagues have been bringing to our attention too. Why do one or two of them not at least jump up in caucus and express some of their thoughts and concerns about the Premier and the power that he and his administration have in terms of the free trade agreement, and particularly the wine makers and the grape growers down in the Niagara Peninsula?

1640

Mr. Faubert: We already have.

Mr. Cureatz: They already have. Let us see the action. Where are we with it? The only consolation is that we have a committee.

Speaking of committees, I noticed the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) was here earlier. I do not know whether he is listening or not. We have got some thoughts and concerns about the to-be-appointed select committee on energy. I have been on every select committee on energy that has been appointed. Did we have one in 1975? I do not really remember. I do not know. There was certainly one in 1977 and in 1981, and now we are going to have another select committee on energy.

That is great, because we do have some problems in terms of electrical capacity in Ontario, particularly, as is of some interest to me, with the Darlington generating station. My understanding is that it will be the world’s largest nuclear station. It will have eight units, whereas Pickering has four.

The newly elected member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) is giving me that little critical eye and saying, “Do not take claim to all the large nuclear power stations.” With all due respect to my colleague from Durham West, she is going to have difficulty with the speech from the throne in terms of that select committee on energy, because her fame has gone before her. I know her capacity and her capabilities of being critical about environmental issues. What is she going to do now?

She is in the government and she is a back-bencher. The new Minister of Energy is over there. He is going to have to toe the line a little bit. After all, we all need electricity to flick on the switch and to power our industries, General Motors and Chrysler. Is she now going to be suddenly critical of Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Energy? Is she going to be standing up? Maybe she will be. Maybe she will be one of the 10 or 15 of the members who, as I suggested, get back together. If she is, good for her. She will be doing her job in terms of representing her constituents.

The other area that was brought out in the speech from the throne was the conflict-of-interest legislation which is a very interesting and serious development for all of us here. All of the members are new and maybe have not had their attention with all due respect to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) -- focused on this particular piece of legislation. Do they know what happens? They will get in the caucus, they will sit there politely, listen to the oldtimers talk away and they are not sure whether they should stand up or say anything.

They might look foolish or they might look intimidated. In that case, they have not really focused on these aspects of this legislation. I got the feeling that the administration has brought this out first so that a lot of the newly elected people who have got capabilities far superior in some areas than myself would not be focusing on the legislation and saying: “Wait a minute. There are a couple of things here that I feel uncomfortable about as an individual, as a member of Ontario and as a newly elected representative. Gee whiz, I do not think I like that.”

But the Premier and House leader know that if they can get this thing through now, the members will not be in the position to ask questions ahead of time. It will be over and done with by the time the members get their act together here, feel comfortable and get around to looking at the legislation. Some of the agenda, of course, will be coming from the speech from the throne. The agenda will be on to other things, it will be long gone and they will be left without having their concerns addressed.

Let us just take a look at a couple of serious concerns that I think the members should give their attention to. My understanding, from looking at all the reviews, is that the area of senior civil servants has been left out in terms of conflict of interest. I do not know now. My understanding is that a lot of them make a heck of a lot more money than all of us here in the assembly. If it is the case that some of those top, senior civil servants are being left out -- and they are recognized in terms of their qualifications through the particular remuneration of their position -- then there just could be a possibility that they might have a conflict of interest in terms of what is taking place vis-à-vis their position and what will be happening with various aspects of contracts or decision-making processes. That is an area of concern we should be taking a look at.

How about one other area that maybe is a little sensitive, but I want to bring it to the members’ attention. They should think about this for the next few days. I am not in that kind of position, but I have heard rumours that there are one or two Liberals who are in that kind of position. What kind of position is that? That is maybe having, in terms of monetary wealth, an accumulation of property, stocks and bonds, etc. I give full credit to them in terms of their individual careers and their standard of living.

We are living in a turmoil-tossed world. It grieves me to no end to see in the Toronto Star, well publicized and brought to our attention, what is happening in terms of a young child in Spain whose kidnappers are demanding a large ransom.

I do not know; do we close our eyes to that or do we focus in on what might happen here in Canada, in Ontario? We cannot stop all those things that are happening. In terms of our own difficulties, we have seen what has taken place with the Air India crash and those kinds of possibilities that do take place in a country, albeit as great as it is.

It seems to me that just maybe a private member should have the opportunity of revealing his assets and his accumulated wealth to the commissioner. That is fine, I have no problem with that. But in terms of making it public, in terms of releasing it for all to see, I have some hesitations about that.

I think the private member, which most members here are, should have an option if the Premier calls up the private member and says, “I would like you to become a member of the executive council,” or “I would like you to become a parliamentary assistant.” If the member acknowledges yes, the condition is that the member’s financial status would be made public for all to see.

By the same token, he would have the option of saying, “No, in terms of the possibilities of somebody reviewing all my financial assets and somebody saying, ‘Gee whiz.’” As well, in the turmoil of the world we live in, there is a family to centre in on. It may leave some private individuals in a very uncomfortable position. I am concerned about that for all of us as members.

The Minister of Health is shaking her head. I do not know; we will wait and see. I am saying that the private member should at least be allowed the option. If they want to join cabinet, if they want to be a parliamentary assistant, they reveal their financial status. But if they do not, they make that conscious decision: “Premier, thank you. In terms of my particular status, I feel great representing the constituents of my riding, but in terms of revealing all my monetary worth, I just feel a little uncomfortable about that and I will take the option of remaining a private member.”

I wish some of the Liberal private members would consider that in terms of the legislation that is being brought forward, in terms of taking a second, quiet look at it and not letting the front bench there intimidate them by telling them that this has to be passed right away. It does not have to be passed right away. We can take a look at it. We can review it. The Attorney General can bring in the various aspects and concerns and maybe address some of them to make us all -- and I mean all of the Liberal members here -- feel a little more comfortable about that particular piece of legislation.

The throne speech had some other interesting areas that I want to bring to the members’ attention in terms of my commitment to individuals here. Of course, that is about energy, the select committee on energy. Actually, it is going to fall in the category of another famous select committee which we had around here, the select committee on company law. The select committee on company law, if I remember, sat here for about 14 years under a particular person by the name of Allan Lawrence, a former Attorney General, who is, coincidentally enough, my federal member out in my area in Durham. Whenever that committee was struck, in the 1960s, it carried on for 15 or 20 years and a lot of productive, good work came out of that committee.

Now we have a similar committee carrying on, the select committee on energy. What are we are going to do with energy? We should be taking a look at the electrical capacity of this province up until the year 2000. I am going to be looking with great interest, because of course the former select committee on energy said that Darlington, the generating station in my riding, should be completed, of which I was fully supportive. Some 7,000 or 8,000 men and women are working there, having a large impact, both financial and social, in my riding.

I will be curious, because under that report it said there should be no further nuclear stations built until the year 2000. We all realize the strong economic growth Ontario has had over the last couple of years. There just might be a forecast that we are going to be needing some more electricity. Heaven forbid. We are going to have to look for some alternative plants to produce electricity. Lo and behold, we might have to be looking at nuclear power again or hydro power or -- do I shudder? -- thermal power and all the ramifications all those particular stations produce, be it nuclear and how do we dispose of the waste, or be it thermal and what do we do with the ash going up to the sky and the acid rain.

Do not forget, and I say to my colleagues in the opposition who have been great proponents of hydro power, what about the environmental impact that takes place in terms of damming up rivers and creeks and flooding large areas to get a head of water to turn the turbine?

1650

I actually congratulate the government because from time to time I have heard my colleagues in opposition, and they do get a little critical and nasty, but far be it from me to continue on in that frame of mind all the time. I give the government credit for focusing in on a very important area of this province, and that is the continuation of electricity in Ontario and which way we are going to go. I am looking forward and I hope I have the opportunity of serving on that committee so that my valuable experience --

Am I boring the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip)? Is this getting a little --

Mr. Philip: No.

Mr. Cureatz: I will try to get some enthusiasm back. I know how we can do that.

In terms of the throne speech, of course, we talked about health care, and I am glad the Minister of Health is here. We will not centre in on some of the crucial issues that are taking place today but more the local issues and the monetary commitment that has been made to the expansion of the Bowmanville Memorial Hospital, for which we are patiently waiting for funds. I know they will be forthcoming because I can see she is nodding her head in agreement, and we appreciate that very much. I know I can report back. We are not getting partisan now, are we? Do I have to go back -- the minister wants the floor; I can see this.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just wanted to note to the member opposite that I do have a habit of nodding my head when I am paying attention, as opposed to when I am affirming or agreeing. It should not be misinterpreted.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Offer): So noted.

Mr. Cureatz: It did not sound like a point of order to me, Mr. Speaker.

We are looking with great interest to when the cheque will be forthcoming so we can make the expansion at the Bowmanville hospital. But of course, there is another particular hospital in my area. This is a good one; do not miss this one. There is another one in our area, where the hospital is not located, but I do have some impact representing the north end of the city of Oshawa, and the honourable member, my new colleague the member for Durham Centre, I am sure, has brought this to the minister’s attention.

Hon. Mrs Caplan: He is a fine member.

Mr. Cureatz: I agree totally. The minister should have seen the picture of him last week in the Whitby Review. He was standing up at a podium like this, holding on for dear life, and the headline said, “After Two Months at Queen’s Park I Am Totally Frustrated. I cannot get any answers on why the Whitby Hospital is not getting the required bed capacity that should be allocated to it.”

I thought, there is my new elected back-bencher of the Liberal government finally getting a degree of frustration from the Liberal front bench, and I can only say to the honourable minister that I do hope she will evaluate the difficulty that we have there. The minister has a big portfolio, about a third of the budget of Ontario. We do not expect her to wave the magic wand tomorrow to get that resolved, but we do hope she allows the member for Durham Centre the opportunity of coming in with his delegation to meet with her so that she might listen to their concerns, as was brought forth in the speech from the throne, about commitment to health care, and if not tomorrow --

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The nodding is that I am now acknowledging and will be pleased to meet with them at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Cureatz: That is good; and over the fullness of time maybe those issues will be addressed, and I will say to the member for Durham Centre, if he is really keen, he will get a copy of Hansard tomorrow and he can send it off to the press and say, “You see, the minister has made a commitment in the House, and do not worry, we will be looking after our difficulties, albeit if not within a short span of time, we know in the fullness of time and for sure before the next election.”

In any event, we have also had, in terms of the speech from the throne, some comments about highway construction across Ontario. Interestingly enough, as much as I have got along with the Minister of Transportation, he has promised me a meeting since September 10, almost every day, with some concerned constituents about the construction of Highway 115-35 through the town of Newcastle; and of course I can only remind the minister that in the speech from the throne there was acknowledgement about highway construction.

The minister, as fine a gentleman as he is, has yet to oblige me with the meeting, because there is a particular overpass at the junction of Highways 115 and 35 in which some concerned citizens and constituents of mine are saying that they are causing another problem of a left-hand turn, over which I took a lot of criticism back in the early years of 1977 and 1978 for putting up a barrier median down the middle. I stuck to my guns and said we needed it, and now it appears the ministry is going ahead with a particular left hand-turn, which counters all the safety aspects of what we have been working on.

In any event, strangely enough, I have had another concern from the township of Scucog about the possibility of the placement of stoplights on Highway 7A in the Port Perry area. It is just as well that we did not have the meeting, because now I can continue with the township of Scugog’s concerns about the stoplight. We are still looking forward to the meeting and the commitment of the speech from the throne about transportation across Ontario.

The concerns about beer and wine in the grocery store were highly touted before the last election. There was great debate. The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) is shaking his head. I do not know where he was; I thought there was a lot of interest and concern.

In any event, in terms of the speech from the throne, I do not quite remember. Members can help me with this. Is there some little sentence in here about beer and wine in the grocery store and the continued Liberal commitment? I will tell members there is not.

Mr. Philip: No.

Mr. Cureatz: OK, thank you.

Mr. Philip: I read it five times, and it was not there any time.

Mr. Cureatz: It was not there. I read it only once. I give the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale credit, because he has to read things five times until it sinks in. I can understand that.

In any event, there was a commitment about the Liberal administration coming closer to the people. I ran across a concern to the residents in the former village of Orono. Now we are all in the town of Newcastle.

We were able to get a liquor store in the village of Orono, that small community. It has been very helpful to local businessmen, because people come in and buy their wine, spirits or beer and they may also do some other shopping at the local bake shop or the local electrical shop, Orono Electric.

Do you know what has happened? The staff of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario has decided the store should be moved out of the little village. These are nuts-and-bolts concerns that some members are going to get. The staff has decided to move the store out of the village and put it closer to the major highway so that people driving up and down the highway can see where the liquor store is, albeit it is going to be a little difficult to get to.

I am not a member of the board. They probably have people running around studying all these things and have decided that was the best place for it to go. By the same token, I must confess I was a little disappointed, a little disheartened. As the representative of the area for the last number of years -- and I have been here four terms now; this is the first term for some of the members -- I would have thought I would have had just a little say, a little consideration from the board, a little phone call saying: “Sam, listen, we are thinking about doing this. Maybe we should have a little meeting with your business people. We can discuss this, look at alternatives to make sure the impact on the business community is not as great as it might be. After all, we have worked along with our businesses in various communities across Ontario, with business improvement area grants in improving them and working in conjunction with the government in putting liquor stores in their downtown areas to attract business.”

I did not get the call. I was not informed, and that was a little bit annoying. I am not being overly critical of the staff. I am saying some consideration of that nature would have been helpful, because we now have a concern of the businesses there about the possibility of losing a fair bit of traffic in the little community.

With that in mind, I know the minister responsible will be looking forward to a letter from me asking for a little meeting with himself and my constituents and the staff from the LCBO so that maybe we can work out some other alternative.

Remember, the speech from the throne said that this government is going to get closer to the people. I know the minister will be very obliging in getting closer to the people and will provide me with an audience so that we can resolve some of these difficulties.

Time is going on and there are so many other aspects I would like to touch base on. Just a couple more, and then I know that, with great sadness and crocodile tears in all your eyes, I will have to sit down.

I do want to comment on an interesting aspect that is taking place -- and I see that my colleague the member for Northumberland has left already -- because I have to give another speech tonight, at 7:30, to the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority about a concern that some of us have about 9,000 acres of forest down in our area of Durham East in the riding of Northumberland. Of course, it works in with the speech from the throne about “all of our concerns about conservation across Ontario.”

The authority had public hearings, albeit during August and September, when I was slightly preoccupied with another occupation: getting myself elected. It had public hearings and the authority had come up with and almost passed a recommendation of, among other things, allowing motorized vehicles in the forests on the east and west portions and not allowing any kind of movement of that kind whatsoever in the centre portion.

1700

I am not a member of the authority. They have staff to relate to them some of their thoughts and concerns about this new direction, but I am going to be saying to them tonight, as I have discussed with the minister, that this kind of approach, I think, should be looked at by ministry staff, by people who can compare what other authorities are doing, because I just have a little fear that the Ganaraska conservation authority staff are saying, in terms of the 9,000 acres of forest that they have: “Jeepers, it’s an awful lot of property. We don’t have the staff to control it. We’re going to relieve ourselves of a lot of the acreage. We’re going to look to volunteer groups to patrol the forest and wash our hands of it.”

I think, in terms of the growth that is taking place in our particular part of the province, east from Metro, that kind of hands-off approach is not the way we should be going. I am going to be bringing that to the conservation authority’s attention and reminding them about my discussion on the speech from the throne in terms of the Liberal administration’s commitment to conservation in Ontario.

Speaking of conservation, my colleague the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) indicated he talked about dumpsites and the concerns that I think a lot of us are going to be having. My colleague the member for Durham West, who defeated a fine member, the Conservative member for Durham West, George Ashe, in the last election, has had some notoriety out in the region of Durham. I do not think she was that vocal, was she, over the Toronto dump proposal about moving things into Pickering? I do not know, I did not hear her.

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: Maybe she was. OK, that is fine; good for her. I am glad she was. These are areas that she and I are going to have to work on, because out my way, in the area of Newtonville, the region of Durham is talking about expanding a large dumpsite. I am going to be looking with great interest at whether the Minister of the Environment is going to short-circuit the Environmental Assessment Act in terms of allowing that expansion to proceed or is going to not intervene and let that whole process unfold as it should.

In any event, we have four years to talk about those kinds of problems that have hit all us now. It is interesting how the dumpsite situation has come upon us like a load of garbage, there is no doubt about it. It is going to be an issue that is going to affect all of us, either for those of us who are in communities where landfill sites are located or for those members who are representing large urban areas and whose constituents are trying to get rid of the garbage.

The GO train cannot go without being mentioned, I say to the member for Durham Centre and the member for Durham West. We only bring this to attention in terms of the speech from the throne because there was very little lipservice paid outside of the fact of looking at an overall policy of transportation in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area. It is going to affect the member for Scarborough Centre, because I am sure a lot of her constituents in the south end are jumping on the GO train at the station down there and coming into Toronto, while there are a lot of people in the region of Durham who want to jump on the same GO train. There are a lot of them who want it expanded, and if they jump on it first, that means her constituents are not going to have a seat to sit in.

That is good that they are going to take a look at the overall transportation aspects around Metro Toronto. I am glad the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is here now, because he too, I believe, has been a great proponent of the expansion of the GO train to the city of Oshawa. I can only say to the member for Oshawa, we are looking with great anticipation of the actual day. He and I will have a pact to get on the first train at the station at the east end of Oshawa when it leaves and comes into Toronto, which I am sure will be before the next election, because if I recall, there is a great picture of the Minister of Transportation mulling that very fact over as he is walking down the unattended GO train tracks, and Mayor Pilkey is disappointed after failing to gain a GO promise from the minister. But we are very confident that in the fullness of time, and before the next election, it will be chugging along. We will be reminding the minister, of course, of his commitment to ensuring that would take place.

I have a couple of final comments so that I can remind my honourable colleague here, who will be up in a minute. That is in terms of my role as critic of two ministries, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Correctional Services.

I can say to both ministers, of course, congratulations on their appointments.

I have had the opportunity of being critic of the Ministry of Correctional Services over the last year and am looking forward to investigating some concerns that I have. It is a difficult ministry in terms of positive approaches, but there is one area on which I have yet to get any response, and that is the report of the various panel investigative groups. There are panels that investigate our institutions, and they give reports to the minister. I hounded the former minister, the member for Kingston and The Islands, whom I also congratulate for doing a remarkable job during the last two and a half years in holding down two portfolios. I did not receive those panel inspection reports from him, but I will be pursuing this matter with the new minister.

I congratulate the newly appointed Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) on her unique appointment, the first female member in that portfolio. I think it is very innovative on the part of the Premier. Good for him. It is a nice sign to see him doing that, and I congratulate him, because I do not see one reason in the world why she should not be in that position and directing a different aspect. Traditionally, lawyers have been in that position, but lawyers get bogged down in blinders, and I think she will look at things a little differently, maybe in terms of her past business experience.

Among other areas I want to bring to the attention of the minister, I have been reviewing over the last three or four months, maybe longer, some criticism by our court system of our police officers in the field, about the manner in which they have been approaching people who have to be arrested or interrogated. It seems to be something a little different: the courts intervening and being very critical of our police. I only ask the minister -- and I will again bring it to her attention in question period when I have that opportunity -- for the assurance from her and her ministry that our police officers, as good a job as they do under very trying and difficult circumstances, should be reminded and their memory refreshed about the responsibility they have to all people in Ontario when they approach and administer their very important position in the law.

With that, with the administration, I would only bring to the attention of the Attorney General the concern I have that, now that there is a large majority government, in terms of having an impact and not the yoke of the New Democratic Party --

By the way, to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier): she has a very fine son out in Port Hope, with whom we had some conversation during the election. He was very confident the member was going to win, and I said I was sure she would too, and she did.

Mrs. Grier: As a journalist, he is nonpartisan.

Mr. Cureatz: Funny -- he said he was canvassing for the member on that particular Saturday, though I guess that is nonpartisan.

I say to the Attorney General that now is his opportunity to approach his cabinet colleagues and the Treasurer and remind them about the new report that is coming out, in terms of what will be taking place in the administration of justice and the lack of funding for that office in the past while. Maybe former Conservative administrations under -- should I bite my tongue? -- Roy McMurtry should be criticized a little bit, looking at our crown attorneys and the lack of remuneration they have been getting in comparison to what, say, defence lawyers in the private sector are getting. There was a large announcement made lately about a number of crown attorneys who have left because of the long hours and lack of recognition. These are concerns that do not necessarily affect all of our constituents, but from time to time members will be getting letters and inquiries about various aspects of the administration of justice. It is a very delicate area, and it really falls on the shoulders of the Attorney General. We will be looking forward to him coming up with some positive aspects to assure us that his ministry will now be given the attention it may not have been given over the last two or three years.

With those few words, Mr. Speaker, and congratulating you on your appointment -- I always forget and I must remind everyone here that members are under the new system of television. We forget about that quite often, but there is a whole staff of people on the third floor, I think, in cubicles, directing cameras and pushing buttons, and I bet from time to time it gets a little boring for them listening to us drone on --

Mrs. Grier: Not when you are speaking.

Mr. Cureatz: Not at all? Only when the member for Oshawa is speaking is it not boring, I guess.

Mr. Breaugh: I went in and gave them some No-Doz.

Mr. Cureatz: The member did? Okay. In any event, we congratulate them for persevering now and in the years to come, and of course we congratulate our translators in the booth. Again, that is very innovative. That came in under the reform system of the minority government, when the New Democratic Party supported the Liberals, and I have to confess -- even I have to admit -- there were some good aspects that evolved from that short two-year term, one of which is the much better hours. New members do not have any idea of the tediousness of sitting here to 10:30 at night going on and on.

1710

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: Some of them do? Maybe they do.

Mr. Breaugh: They are getting the flavour of it now.

Mr. Cureatz: That is right, but at least they only have to sit to 6:30; before, it was 10:30. They can leave and have dinner and not worry about coming back.

I can only add that there will come a point in time when we will have to have a colour commentator in conjunction with television. When people across Ontario tune in the TV, they will be watching me drone on at great length about my concerns in Durham East and the speech from the throne, or any one of the members can also continue on with his concerns, and they just might not grasp what is taking place.

Maybe we should hire Bob Fisher from CBC or Rosemary Speirs. They can sit in and be colour commentators, advising all the people across Ontario what is taking place from time to time in the assembly, to bring people’s attention closer to what is happening in terms of their parliament and their government in the province.

In terms of my very short remarks, we are of course looking forward to participating again, in what I guess will be the budget debate. I know a lot of these problems will be resolved, the Whitby hospital, the junction of Highways 115 and 35. The GO train might even come out to Oshawa. With that in mind, I will take my place.

Mrs. Stoner: It is with great pleasure that I rise to comment on the long speech of my colleague the member for Durham East. I appreciate his advertising, both today and the other day. For those members who did not see the advertising he was referring to, the photos of the Premier flipping flapjacks on the front page of the Toronto Star, anybody who lived in Durham East had the opportunity to see the Premier on the brochures of my friend the member for Durham East.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Your friend from Durham East had the Premier in his brochures?

Mrs. Stoner: He certainly did. A very nice picture, too, I must say. The Premier is so handsome.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Was Larry in his brochure?

Mrs. Stoner: Very nice brochure.

Anyhow, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in response to his comments, and particularly to his comments on energy, because I am very pleased and applaud the revitalization of the select committee on energy. It is of crucial importance, particularly now with the free trade commitment of the federal Tories on energy, which is frankly frightening to me and, I am sure, to a large number of thinking members in this House in its implications.

I would also like to comment that in matters of environment and waste management, the Minister of the Environment has done more in two years than the Tory governments of the last 40-odd years in resolving some of the problems in waste management. I am sure that we, through the initiatives of the speech from the throne, will do even more in that direction. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to comment.

Mr. Furlong: I would like to address some remarks to my colleague the member for Durham East and let him know that I appreciate the time he has spent in serving the residents of the north part of Oshawa. I assure him that I will continue to serve those residents and those constituents, and I hope better than he did. There was always a criticism of the member that he was not around in the House, he was not here, he was not making any speeches. He has made up for it today. He spoke long enough today on issues not really pertaining to the throne speech, but none the less, he was entertaining.

Because he has made a comment with respect to my frustrations in this place, I want to assure him that the comments were made on the basis of how I felt over the first couple of months here, in that I am used to having things done a little more quickly than they are done here and I was expressing that in the statement he attributed to me.

I can assure him that I have had discussions with the Minister of Health and she has agreed to meet with the hospital board. That will be done as soon as possible, and I am sure he will want to join with me to make sure that the constituents in his part of Whitby are also well served.

Mr. Elliot: I, too, would like to make a few comments with respect to the speech we just heard. Since I have been about 16 years in hard work to assume a place in this House, I really would like to invoke something I always promised myself. That was that the first time I rose in this House, I would pay someone a compliment. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to pay a compliment to the member for Durham East on the length of his speech.

The other thing I would like to compliment him on is that I was reading some of the regulations in the standing orders as the speech was going on and at one point I almost rose on a point of order. Section 19(d)1 says if someone speaks twice to a question, he can be called on a point of order, and the second time the member mentioned the speech from the throne, I thought I should call him on a point of order. He did go on and mention it four times before the end of his speech.

Seriously, the compliment comes with respect to the advice offered to rookies in the House like myself, because towards the end of his speech he did highlight two things that directly affect my riding of Halton North. One pertains to garbage and the other pertains to the extension of the GO train. I would certainly welcome at any time if the member for Durham East spent the amount of time he spent today in this House talking about that kind of pointed concern that we, as back-benchers on this side of the House, are just as concerned about as he is.

It does give me a great deal of pleasure at this time to accept some advice from an experienced member. I hope we hear much more of that from the other side.

Mr. Philip: The member’s speech reminded me a little bit of my desk at the moment, but since he did compliment the Deputy Speaker, I take that as one really sensible comment. He also complimented Harry Worton who taught me how to be re-elected over and over again. Harry’s advice was very useful; it was a little more precise and certainly a lot more concise than what the member for Durham East gave.

Since he is a former Deputy Speaker, I wonder if he has any suggestions to the new Deputy Speaker on whether there should be a Speaker’s panel, what should that consist of and how we can involve more members in the processes of the House. No doubt he will have some comments on that.

Mr. Daigeler: The lengthy and rather rambling nature of the member’s talk will probably preclude many of us from speaking. We have been looking forward to this privileged opportunity to address the assembly on the occasion of the throne speech. Given the member’s long political experience, I would like to ask him whether he considers this a fair approach and in the best interest of letting all members participate in the political process.

Mr. Cureatz: I have a humble response of two minutes. The former opposition member, now government House leader, before he went on his trip to China, went on for days on end. This is the parliamentary process that we have become accustomed to. As opposition members, we are critical of what is taking place on the front bench because this is the only forum that we have to be heard.

We cannot go running off as a minister and give out quick press releases or little kudos to the press gallery in terms of what is going to be happening with new announcements. Our forum is here and I, as an opposition member, albeit as far as I am from the Speaker, will perform that function to the best of my capacity available, I say to the House leader, notwithstanding other previous conversations.

I do want to say, however, to all members, especially to the member for Durham West, that in terms of my comments from time to time, I know they will take it in the good thrust of the debate because, albeit most comments are very seldom personal in here in terms of an individual’s credibility or integrity, by the same token we do have a function to perform, a long parliamentary heritage of opposition in government. I will be performing that function not as critically as some of my colleagues here because I do not believe in lambasting everybody all the time. One can come up with good points from time to time, too.

1720

I want to conclude. I am glad the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) told everyone about the picture on my pamphlet. Actually, it was a wonderful picture of the Premier and me in my newsletter, which coincidentally enough came out just before the election. One of the senior citizens in my area wanted me to get a picture in recognition of the fine contribution that the new Liberal administration was giving to seniors, and I thought, since as members recall, no one knew who the Premier was for the longest time, it would be incumbent upon me to share with the fine constituents of Durham East a picture of myself and the Premier so that they would become more familiar with who he is.

Mr. Henderson: I must say that to follow the member for Durham East is, in terms of style, something of a difficult act to follow; in terms of content, I do not expect to encounter quite so much difficulty.

I notice that most of the participants in this throne speech debate have begun by congratulating quite a large number of people. I do not wish to be seen as uncharitable or remiss in that regard so I will begin by congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election and on your elevation to the chair that you currently occupy, and congratulate also all the re-elected or newly elected members who are currently here assembled.

I wish to speak in a serious vein and add my own words of praise for the fine throne speech that we heard just a few weeks ago. I do believe this government has shown great commitment in meeting its campaign promises. Certainly, we did that in 1985, and I know we are going to do it again in 1987 and in the years that follow.

I want to address in a little more detail two subjects of the throne speech that are very important to me, namely, the Meech Lake constitutional agreement and the recent trade pact between Canada and the United States.

His Honour indicates that the Meech Lake accord is before the Parliament of Canada and provincial legislatures, and the select committee on constitutional reform, that is, our select committee, will consider the accord and related matters. I would like the committee to do that, knowing of my own personal views about this subject.

I am one of those who believes the Meech Lake accord to be a worrisome document which contains provisions that may have unfortunate consequences for our future in Canada and Ontario. It is far too important a matter, I believe, to simply be rubber-stamped by legislatures in the provinces.

This Meech Lake accord proposes to end Quebec’s estrangement from the Canadian Constitution. Its supporters believe the hope of that accomplishment outweighs whatever defects the agreement may contain. I am not persuaded that is indeed so, however much I do believe -- and I do -- the full participation of Quebec in Canada to be desirable; but I simply believe that we should hold the applause and the fireworks until we get a better kind of agreement.

The contents of the Meech Lake accord by now are common knowledge. Provinces can opt out of certain cost-shared programs and still get their share of federal money if they create programs compatible with the national objectives.

Francophone Canadians will predominate in Quebec’s distinct society. Anglophone Canadians will be centred elsewhere. The distinctiveness of the Quebec-based distinct society will not override multicultural or aboriginal rights. The fate of other rights is left unstated.

Provinces will nominate appointees to the Senate and to the Supreme Court and provinces will have a veto over certain kinds of future changes, including the creation of new provinces and reform of the Canadian Senate.

Critics of this accord, and I must count myself among them, consider it carves in stone an obsolete notion of Quebec. I cannot favour the ensconcing in our Constitution of two Canadas or of two separate kinds of Canadians. I fear the power accorded to the provinces in this deal may pave the way for future separatist governments in Quebec or elsewhere.

I seek instead a Canada sufficiently flexible and tolerant to provide a happy home for anglophones and francophones throughout. Especially, I worry about intruding provinces in federal matters like the appointment of senators and justices and I do not support the notion of a provincial veto on future changes of federal institutions.

I worry that the Meech Lake accord, if implemented, may emasculate the government in Ottawa that stands for all Canadians. After all, why should Canada’s Prime Minister be constrained to appoint senators and justices from lists submitted by provincial Premiers? Do we make federal patronage any better by involving Premiers in its dispensing?

Do we build a stronger Canada by insisting that senatorial or Supreme Court hopefuls scramble to curry favour in the offices of their respective Premiers instead of simply standing on their records before the people and the government of Canada? A future separatist government in Quebec or elsewhere could and likely would submit only the names of nominees who embrace its separatist ideals. That surely is not in the best interests of Canada.

Do we create a stronger Canada by courting a situation wherein a Prime Minister of one political persuasion could be held to ransom over Senate and Supreme Court appointments by Premiers of different political colours? Imagine a Prime Minister of Canada constrained to appoint justices and senators only of opposing political viewpoints. Having a Prime Minister in Canada of a political party that holds power in no provincial capital is by no means an imaginary scenario in Canada.

Most Canadians find federal patronage wanton and distasteful. Let us not multiply that tenfold. Provinces right now can send all the names they want to Ottawa for patronage appointments. Ottawa freely selects from those provincial lists by choice but has never been constrained to do so.

Real reform of the Senate and Supreme Court for those postings may well be overdue but let us get on with that meaningful reform. Let us not tinker in the meantime. How likely is real reform if we begin by giving every province a veto over future changes in our federal institutions?

What hope do territories have of ever becoming provinces if any one province, including one with half of one per cent of Canada’s population, can veto that occurrence? As a provincial MPP, I represent about as many Canadians as the Premier of Prince Edward Island. My constituents are informed, intelligent people, but none of them, nor I on their behalf, would ever stake a claim to a veto over future changes in Canadian institutions. I should not have such authority. The Premier of Prince Edward Island should not have such authority. In my opinion, no provincial Premier should.

According to Meech Lake, any province opting out of federal programs gets its share of federal funds if it carries on a program compatible with the national objectives. Provinces certainly hold the trump cards on that hand. Objectives, it seems to me, are rarely what is at issue in these federal-provincial differences. Almost always we agree about objectives.

During last year’s Bill 94 debate, no one challenged the objectives of universality and accessibility. We all believe in these things. The arguments were about means, not about objectives, and only one means seemed likely to garner federal funds under the Canada Health Act. That was what the dispute was all about. An agreement like Meech Lake could have made a major difference, even caused the worm to turn.

1730

This word “compatible” clouds the issue even further. Objectives that are quite different can still be quite compatible. Legislating English in Manitoba may be quite compatible with legislating French in Quebec, and both are quite compatible with the national objective of linguistic enrichment. “Compatible with the national objectives” surely simply clouds the issue.

Here is the issue baldly stated: Should a province have the power in a federal state to opt out of federal programs and get the money anyway? Should a province have the power to choose the better side of any issue? Should Canada be balkanized into a community of provinces that take whatever portion of the federal pie they wish?

What is meant by “a distinct society”? Every province in Canada contains many distinct societies, each with customs, rights and perhaps privileges never before enshrined in any constitution here. Few of those distinct societies are recognized by law, much less recognized in our federal Constitution, nor need they be. Should the United Empire Loyalists have been enshrined as a distinct society in Upper Canada?

One hears it said that the francophone culture, an oasis in North America, is threatened with assimilation or extinction without a constitutional propping-up. I do not think so, and it seems to me that the idea is highly patronizing to Quebeckers. Jews and, for that matter, Catholics and Protestants are distinct societies which have felt threatened with assimilation on occasion, yet they thrive with no special status in any constitution here.

Far from showing a decline, the French culture of Canada shows great vigour and new enrichment with every passing year, as well it should. Significantly, it is not just in Quebec that French is strong and becoming stronger but also -- thanks in part to linguistic and cultural initiatives in the French networks of CBC radio and TV -- in virtually every province of our nation. Bravo. Let that growth continue, but we do not need distinct societies in our Constitution. Such an idea may well pave the way for a return to a francophone Quebec and an otherwise anglophone Canada.

Moreover, in my view, there are real risks in this “distinct society” provision. Quebec’s Bill 101 could be defended by a government so inclined on the grounds that English-speaking store signs would undermine Quebec’s right to promote its own distinct francophone society. Manitobans who argue for bilingual services could meet an argument that French is now ensconced in the distinct society of Canada’s French-speaking province and that Canadians elsewhere should speak English. Quebec could argue for extended power in language-related fields like culture and communications.

By the terms of Meech Lake, culture and aboriginal rights must be shored up against this “distinct society” provision and, not surprisingly, a host of other groups can and do argue for a comparable shoring up of their own legitimate rights and freedoms because to define and protect one set of rights in a constitution arguably excludes or weakens certain other rights. Carry that to its conclusion and we will have a tedious list of rights and freedoms that must be guaranteed against Quebec’s “distinct society” provision.

I really do believe that we must ask our first ministers to take Meech Lake back to the drawing board, or else we in Ontario should think of suitable amendments. Those amendments, in my opinion, should be along the following lines and cover the following points:

Canada’s Prime Minister may consult with provincial governments in the appointment of senators and Supreme Court justices. In fact, that is exactly what happens and what Prime Ministers often choose to do right now.

Our notion of federal and provincial jurisdictions must be sharpened, and barring very special circumstances, provinces which want the federal money must join the federal program. We cannot have it both ways.

Let us drop the notion, constitutionally at least, of a distinct society in any province. Canada has many distinct societies, some francophone, some anglophone and some neither.

Let us defend the cultural and linguistic rights and distinctions of all our provinces, and if any part of the accord threatens people’s rights enough to invite remedy, let us shore up all the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the charter. Let us veto this notion of provincial veto, which surely has little place in a modern federal state.

The Meech Lake accord is flawed, in my opinion, and I urge that we put it right before the flaws get carved in stone. Meech Lake must be amended or revised. In my opinion, it needs time and real debate in Canada’s elected assemblies; rubber-stamping by the Legislatures just will not do.

The second topic I wish to address in a little detail is the proposed trade agreement between Canada and the United States. On behalf of the government, His Honour indicates that by this agreement Canada has given up far more than it has gained. His Honour goes on to say that “the agreement does not achieve...security of access to US markets,” “does not provide a means of shielding Canadian exporters from restrictive US trade practices” and “contains concessions that will seriously compromise Canada’s sovereign ability to shape its own political and economic agenda.”

It is true that we have in this freer trade deal an imperfect, even flawed agreement, but the principle of free trade, and freer trade, between nations is a good one and in the best traditions of liberalism. I worry at the consequences of too global a rejection, even of a flawed document, lest we throw away the baby with the bath water.

We will make a decision on this deal when we see its final terms, but let us keep alive and well, and let us emphasize, the principles of freer trade among our trading partners. That, after all, is what got Canada into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in the first place.

Canadians in general are confused about free trade. They are nervous about their sovereignty and unsure about the economics of the deal. But emotionality surely is not the order of the day, especially in the wake of Black Monday, the October 19 partial replay of the market crash of 1929.

Inflation, recession, interest rates, the value of the dollar and budgetary and trade deficits show parallels between 1987 and 1929, and a severe recession soon is at least a possibility. Not only investors in the market are hurt by market sensitivities; losses from pension plans, mutual funds and insurance companies will take their toll as well on ordinary Canadians who willy-nilly depend directly on the market’s help.

We Canadians point an accusing finger at the US for its tariffs or threatened tariffs on softwood lumber, potash and cedar shakes and shingles. Certainly Canada, a smaller power than our neighbour, must be on guard in its relationship with a friendly neighbour that can convulse us with a stifled sneeze. Yet we Canadians are not blameless in this matter of protectionism.

We have favoured ourselves in our distribution of our energy resources through the national energy program. Through grain freight subsidies, we have subsidized Canadian businesses and farmers who compete with American suppliers. Through our Department of Regional Economic Expansion, we have supported regions of high unemployment and marginal competitiveness. Through our Foreign Investment Review Agency, we have watchdogged US firms that wanted to establish new businesses in Canada and monitored US takeovers of foreign companies. We have defended Canada’s publishing industry and cultural industries, and banks and trusts and insurance companies, all against American competitors.

These measures were worthy and useful, but protectionist they surely were. Our discrimination in favour of Canadians and against Americans, though quite possibly justified, was blatant. I am sure our protectionism did not go unnoticed.

1740

Canadians in recent decades have rightly insisted on the ownership of our industry and resources. We have been successful in our measures to achieve that, but in doing so have almost certainly paid the tradeoff of some lessening of US flow of capital into Canada. Canadians now own a much greater share of our industries and resources, but attendant on that has been a consolidation of trade between Canada and our US markets that has been crucial to continued economic growth in Canada.

We guaranteed our sovereignty and our right of ownership, but we became very much indeed dependent on our US markets for continued economic health of what we own, and to our credit we at the same time forged important trade links with the countries of the Pacific Rim and with the nations of Europe and Asia. In no sense do I see these two objectives as mutually exclusive. Canadians can trade heavily with Americans and still develop trade links elsewhere, just as indeed the European nations forged the common market but continued to trade heavily with North America and elsewhere.

For whatever reason, the Americans have decided that the time has come to guard their turf, and Reisman and Mulroney struck a deal with the Americans which hopes to get us special treatment and exemption from US tariffs, countervail and antidumping. But why should we Canadians, whose stance has been protectionist for decades, expect Americans to shelter us from their protectionism unless they see a return for them in so doing. The question for Canadians is, how much special status and at what price? We cannot surely have our cake and eat it too.

We can learn, I believe, from a thumbnail history of Canada-US free trade. In 1891, federal Liberals campaigned on a platform of unrestricted free trade and lost the election by a narrow margin, while the US rebuffed free trade proposals from Canada and maintained protectionist high-tariff policies.

In 1911, US President Howard Taft reversed the US stand and negotiated with Wilfrid Laurier a limited free trade pact covering tariffs on many manufactured products. The US Congress passed the enabling legislation, but the Ottawa Tories blocked it, and Laurier was defeated because Canadians feared that free trade would lead to political annexation.

Shortly after the Great Depression, Canada’s Tory Prime Minister Bennett pledged internationalism to reduce Canadian dependence on the US economy and in 1932 hosted the Imperial economic conference as a partial forerunner of GATT. In 1934, Canada-US trade negotiations resumed. Shortly thereafter Liberal Prime Minister Mackenzie King concluded a Canada-US trade agreement and signed a second and broader agreement in 1938 leading to further reductions in tariffs.

A 1940 meeting between President Roosevelt and Mackenzie King in Ogdensburg provided more means of close economic ties between us and the Americans.

In the 1950s, Canadian leaders turned to multilateral trade arrangements such as GATT in an effort to avoid making trade concessions to the US. However, in the mid-1960s Canada and the US signed the auto pact which created for manufacturers a conditional free trade zone for motor vehicles and parts produced in Canada.

I have provided that thumbnail sketch to illustrate the tos and fros of Canada-US freer trade and to illustrate that historically Canadian Liberals have favoured free trade and Canadian Tories have sometimes balked. Indeed, Canadian Prime Minister Bennett’s pledge in the early 1930s to blast a way into world markets and to reduce Canadian dependence on the US economy calls to mind in some respects the current position of this government.

Let us examine once again the six requirements
-- and I will do this briefly -- we set out as necessary ingredients of a freer trade agreement. Each of them is arguable, none of them is fully met, yet each is partly met. In this imperfect world of compromises, that is not surprising.

First, we wanted a binding dispute-settling mechanism to arbitrate disputes. We got that but we got a compromise, because the Americans insisted that the tribunal not have power to override the laws of the United States Congress.

Did we expect it otherwise? What country would be willing to give a foreign state an equal voice in overriding the laws of its own legislative processes? Would we? Remember, this is a bilateral agreement. For either country to agree to submit to the tribunal is tantamount to agreeing ante facto to partial subservience to the political will of a trading partner. Surely the best we could hope for was some mechanism to ensure that both countries administer their laws in a fair and equitable way.

Both Washington and Ottawa retained the right to enact the legislation they see fit and both, therefore, have incentive to commit themselves to periodic renewal of the terms of freer trade if the deal is going to work. Either side can back out wholly or in part any time it wants, with notice, risking of course the other side’s retaliation. Imperfect, perhaps disappointing in some ways, but also understandable.

Second, Canada’s cultural industries must not be compromised nor weakened. Yet Canadian culture surely is not today the fragile child it may once have been. Canadian journalism, Canadian broadcasting and television Canadian film making and theatre, and Canadian artists and performers in many fields have surely come of age. Do we Canadians still require an array of protectionist measures to strengthen what is valuable to us in our culture?

Would individual Canadians and Canadian entrepreneurial spirit not be able to invigorate those parts of our culture that we feel to be our own? The issue now for Canadians is not, “How much Canadian culture from our government?” but rather, “How much Canadian government does our culture need?”

Third, the auto pact must not be gutted. In fact, by the terms of this agreement, nationalism in the auto pact does give way to continentalism at a price of freer trade. Canada’s capacity to seduce foreign auto makers to provide us jobs may be curtailed. Foreign car makers will not be able to bring cars to Canada duty-free provided Canadian parts are used to make them. The auto pact’s largess will not extend to foreign makers that put assembly plants on Canadian soil. That is a loss. Perhaps, as well, we bent the auto pact a little from its original intent. Was it ever meant to cover Japanese and European makers?

Fourth, regional disparity subsidies are not to be disturbed, nor should they be. But the greater flow of US capital, and thereby jobs, into Canada may counterbalance whatever partial losses we sustain in regional disparity initiatives. May not the agreement strengthen the hand of Canadian suppliers who bid on US aerospace and other government contracts?

Fifth, Canadians must continue to screen foreign investment entering Canada. By the terms of this agreement, we look for greater flow of US capital to Canada. For that, we relinquish, a little, our control of what it buys, and we would rather not have to do that. By this agreement, US companies can set up business here in Canada and US companies can take over foreign firms even if their Canadian subsidiaries may be affected. We still can intervene when US firms attempt to buy up larger Canadian corporations.

That may be less control than we would like, but it is largely what has been happening in any case since 1984, since the Foreign Investment Review Agency has moved backstage.

Sixth, we must maintain our ability to safeguard Canada’s farmers and agricultural industry. Canadian farmers lose their transportation subsidies on grain exported to the US by the terms of this accord, but the percentage of Canadian grain crossing the border is small, so the impact may not be great nationwide.

1750

Ontario grape growers and wineries may be hurt unless we are smart enough to devise a way to prevent it. Can Ontario ingenuity not do that? What about finding ways other than discriminatory price markups to make sure that Ontario’s wine industry will thrive, and a few Ontario wineries -- Hillebrand Estates I understand is one -- are confident and unconcerned.

Finally, as an overriding issue, Canadian sovereignty and culture must not be compromised by this agreement. But is it? Nothing in this pact allows Americans to vote in Canada’s elections. Nothing gives the US Congress greater play in the Canadian governmental process and nothing makes the US President any more to us than a hopefully friendly leader of a foreign power.

In Europe, where the common market has been in place for decades, I do not see much lessening of a Belgian sense of being Belgian or a German sense of being German or a Frenchman’s pride in France. I see little lessening of sovereignty following a relaxation of international protectionism and little lessening of the capacity of European countries to trade abroad with us.

The province of Canada traditionally most nervous about its culture and its sovereignty has been Quebec, yet Quebec supports this freer trade accord because it is used to having to guard its own sovereignty and culture and looks to a trade agreement for economic, not cultural advantage. That is as it should be. If threat to sovereignty is mainly what we worry about in this agreement, we can surely draw some comfort from our growing maturity as a nation. Canada in 1987 is not a fragile child.

There are some other facets of this deal that cause me some concern. The first is the matter of our energy resources. I worry at the prospect of unchecked marketing of nonrenewable energy supplies. If we cannot improve the clauses of this agreement to deal with energy, we will have to get a great deal smarter in our exploitation of renewable energy supplies. By the terms of this agreement, we promise to let the Americans have the benefit of price advantages that we claim ourselves and we promise to ration them and us pro rata on an equal basis. That, it seems to me, may pose some problems.

A second and perhaps the most important aspect of this deal for me that gives me pause is the absence of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade from these bilateral arrangements. To be sure, the GATT is sometimes troublesome; slow, riddled with complex politics, at times unwieldy. To be sure as well, we theoretically at least can proceed bilaterally with the Americans right now and broaden the ingredients of the deal in some GATT-sanctioned, multilateral trade treaty later. But our European, Asian and Pacific Rim trade partners are important to us. To have negotiated this deal through the GATT would have signalled our good faith to the world community and shown the error of those who are tempted in any case to regard Canada as an economic appendage of the United States.

Like R. B. Bennett in the early 1930s, I worry just a little about what we signal to the world in proceeding bilaterally with the Americans outside the protective framework of the GATT. The recent GATT ruling against our discriminatory pricing and distribution in support of Canadian wineries and breweries and against our fish-exporting policies may foreshadow other complications of the bilateral route to trade exemptions and special status.

There is more in this agreement to be criticized. Government procurement policies, our access to US aerospace and state government purchases in electronics and communications fields receive too little attention. Little is said of assistance to be provided to industries or workers dislocated or disadvantaged by the deal. That shortfall can still be remedied of course.

The dispute-settling mechanism precludes rather than complements the World Trade Council in Geneva. It also is weaker than I would have liked although we can be hopeful that accumulated case law will help and that a foreshortened ruling time and five- rather than one-member arbitration will prove expeditious and more consistent.

Access to the vast US market may not be guaranteed, but still, the deal may take some worthwhile steps in the right direction. All in all, it is an imperfect deal with some risks and some shortfalls which ought to be corrected, but I do not favour trade barriers between states. They help the rich stay richer and the poor stay poorer.

I favour steps towards freer trade, preferably multinational in scope, and preferably through the GATT, as Canada comes of age and seeks to expand its niche in the world community, but as we strive for internationalism, it behoves us to remember that 70 per cent of our trade is with the US. That trade relationship is a precious one, albeit one needing healthy and strong counterbalance.

None of us has seen the final draft of the freer trade accord. The Premier’s recent proposal for a six-month moratorium on its final draft has merit, but whenever the final version comes, it will be worth our careful and objective scrutiny. Emotionality is not the order of the day, especially in the light of recent market meltdown and investor panic. Little in this deal is likely to be carved in stone. Canadian and US legislators can legislate against whatever parts of the accord they cannot find ways to live with. If that happens, will we be worse off than we were before? The major long-term risk, in my opinion, is that we will have paid too great a price for proceeding outside the GATT, but Canadians will have to relinquish Canadian protectionism just a little if freer trade of any sort is going to work.

We are strong enough, in my opinion, to do that. We can preserve our culture and our sovereignty, for Canadians have never shown a deficit of patriotism. Our patriotic fervour, though strong, is of a quieter sort, that we reach down for and find with little difficulty when occasions warrant. Let us look to freer trade for its economic value and let us remember that our trading partners will no more trade away their trump cards than will we. There is certainly a place in international affairs for trust with reasonable safeguards.

Like Laurier and King and many other Liberals past and present, I believe in liberalized and freer trade among all the trading nations of the world. If this deal is yet imperfect, and I believe it is, let us none the less urge our standing committee on finance and economic affairs to avoid a hasty or closed-minded rejection of its ideals and aims, that is, the ideals and aims of this accord. Let us remember the GATT and think of all our trading partners as well as the Americans.

I have spoken very frankly on these two matters. The Premier called for a wholesome debate, and debate cannot be wholesome unless debaters speak their minds. Honourable members who have attended, as I have, the performance in Toronto of Gilbert and Sullivan’s HMS Pinafore have been reminded of Sir Joseph Porter’s famous words. He said, and I quote:

I always voted at my party’s call,

and I never thought of thinking for myself at all. I thought so little, they rewarded me

by making me the ruler of the Queen’s navy.

Ontario has no navy, but certainly for me personally as a private member, Porter’s approach to legislative debate is not even thinkable.

This assembly also has rejected that rather truncated version of Porter’s so-called party discipline. By a nearly unanimous margin, we passed in January this year my resolution affirming that private members should exercise independent judgement consistent with loyalty to their party’s principles in making known their views on public matters.

The principle of a strong central government for Canada and the principle of freeing up the trade arrangements between nations, especially between ourselves and the Americans, have ample precedent in Canadian Liberalism and in Canadian politics generally. Representative democracy can surely only work if members of our elected assemblies are free to speak in a thoughtful, reasoned and rational way on the important issues of our day.

In that spirit of openness, I have attempted to contribute a little to debate on two important issues touched on in this throne speech which face the future of our province and our nation.

Mr. Speaker: As it is close to six of the clock, and some members may wish to make comments or questions on the previous speaker’s speech, I wonder if the member would like to adjourn the debate.

On motion by Mr. Henderson, the debate was adjourned.

1800

Mr. Speaker: We do have an adjournment of debate, but does the minister have any brief words for the House?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, November 23, we will continue hearing members’ contributions to the debate on the speech from the throne.

On Tuesday, November 24, by agreement of the House leaders, the throne speech debate will conclude. The time between 4:15 p.m. and 5:45 p.m. will be shared equally, with the vote to be held at 5:45 p.m. Any period of time left between the end of routine proceedings and 4:15 p.m. on Tuesday will be spent on the normal rotation of speakers on the throne speech.

On Wednesday, November 25, the interim supply motion standing on the Orders and Notices paper in the name of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will be debated.

On Thursday, November 26, the morning will be devoted to private members’ ballot items standing in the names of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) and the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom). In the afternoon we will continue, if needed, with the interim supply motion, followed by, as time permits, second reading of Bill 11, the Ontario Loan Act.

There may be additions to this order of business following the usual consultations among the House leaders.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 30, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Speaker: The member for Markham gave notice yesterday of his dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Minister of Housing. Therefore, the member has up to five minutes to debate this matter and the minister has up to five minutes to reply.

Mr. Cousens: I think all of us have a great concern about what is happening in Ontario with regard to housing and the need to respond to the great requirement for more units of affordable housing this province must provide.

I have asked a number of questions of the Minister of Housing and on a previous occasion, when I had hoped to come back and obtain further insight into what she was thinking or not thinking, doing or not doing, she unfortunately spent the first part of her answer to my first question yesterday just talking about that as if I had other things that were more important.

I would like to just go back half a moment and make the minister realize there was an etiquette that took place in my telling her I would not be able to be present for this special debate after the House closed so that her time could be respected as well. As it turns out now, when I put in the request, it was last Wednesday and then the House had the throne speech debate on Thursday and then on Monday. I had not thought it was going to go till Tuesday; I had other meetings in the riding. Rather than bring the minister back and not have someone here to discuss it, those things took precedence at that time.

I thought it was somewhat poor-mannered of her to concentrate the first part of her question on something that generally has been handled in a very different way by members of this House when they respect each other in the process of doing their job.

In spite of the fact that she is not doing the job I would like her to do as minister, I still have great respect for her as a person. I think that underlines everything we are trying to do in this House. We have a great responsibility.

During the election in August, the one that ended on September 10, there was an advertisement in the Toronto papers that indicated the Liberal Party was going to create 102,000 affordable rental units by 1989: a very significant commitment, a commitment I will not allow this minister or this government to forget. But we have been looking for some sign, some indication of where they are going to be and when they are going to be started so this minister can fulfil the promise of the government. Part of that has to do with the 12,000 housing units that are purported to be developed over the next five years on government-owned lands.

There is a great deal of concern expressed by the people who live in Scarborough, by the people who live in Markham, by the people who are concerned about the Rouge Valley. Is that land targetted for development? Is that part of the land that this minister wants to take over? We know there is land in Metropolitan Toronto, but there has been a strong statement made by Scarborough council, a vote of 16 to one in fact, where they said: “Protect it. Defend it. It is irreplaceable; you’re not going to get another piece of land like it. We have done it with the Niagara Escarpment. Do not do to the Rouge Valley what so often has happened when you develop land that is otherwise irreplaceable.”

So I was looking for some signal from this minister that she could stand up and say with a sense of confidence: “That is not where we’re going to build. In fact, I understand the pleas and the plight of the people of Scarborough and that is not where we’re going to go into it.”

In order to lead into that, I asked two questions. I know the Speaker likes to keep it to one question during question period, but I do admit that it was a double-barrelled question. I was asking the minister, and she can spend her time in the five minutes any way she wants -- she has been spending it any way she wants anyway -- but I would like to see her answer the question. Will the minister inform this House what consultation she has had with local municipalities and in which municipalities she intends to erect these units?

I am interested in knowing, has she talked to any municipalities about government-owned lands? As the Minister of Housing, she can say, “Oh well, that’s Government Services” and it is someone else’s responsibility, but none the less, through her, conversations begin.

Does she have any idea where the 102,000 will go, or the 12,000 in particular? Can she tell us which municipalities she has on her agenda? Who are the targets? Some of them may want great places developed, but Scarborough does not want the Rouge Valley developed.

If she can give us an idea, then we are going to know where it is going to be ending up; and then maybe she can give us some idea really -- she has 12,000 units, part of the 102,000 -- where is she going to build them?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am glad to acknowledge that the member for Markham did indeed inform me before the last late show that he would not be attending, and I am particularly glad to see him here today.

During the last few weeks, as Minister of Housing, it has been made abundantly clear to me that some people in this House are looking to me for a quick fix. Let me say that they are looking to the wrong person. As Minister of Housing, I know I face a tremendous challenge, one which I embrace with vigour and determination. But I am not here to play games, I am here to work hard and to deliver.

I plan to push aggressively forward in our fight for affordable housing. Every person in this province deserves decent shelter, and by decent shelter I mean properly maintained buildings; affordable buildings, whatever the income level; and secure in the sense that a tenant will not have to fear being evicted.

Under this government that is not a new commitment. It is a commitment which has been demonstrated clearly and strongly many times since 1985. Let me remind the member of that. On paper, we call it the assured housing program.

More important, in dollar terms it represents $645 million committed. More important than that, it means that people of modest means will not be locked out in the cold. Decent housing should not be a privilege, it should be a right, and in Ontario we will provide that housing.

This is a far-reaching strategy, because this is a complex world and we do have problems. In this province we are both blessed and cursed. As our economy booms, our housing situation suffers. The changes are palpable. Our cities have become burgeoning urban centres, centres of opportunity for tens of thousands of people to better their lives. In spite of the fact that so many are not able to find decent affordable housing, they continue to come and they will continue to come in droves. This is the reality, and it is also a disturbing one, but it is a reality that this government is prepared to deal with.

We are going to find ways to house people by putting resources into the hands of local communities and by adapting our neighbourhoods. We are not going to be constrained by convention. This government will pursue innovative ideas and make existing housing work for us. A warehouse can be used as more than a warehouse, it can be converted into housing. So can abandoned shopping malls and surplus schools in the future. We can make it possible for affordable housing to be within the reach of every person in Ontario and we must make that possible.

It is my view that this government’s housing program is an ambitious one. It will involve the partnership of all levels of government and local communities. My ministry has regional offices serving and working throughout Ontario, providing concrete assistance to local communities in their efforts to identify and to meet the needs for housing of the people of Ontario.

With regard to the issue of where the province will provide housing units, I respond by saying that through this ministry, housing units will be provided all across the province. At present, over 83 per cent of the province’s municipalities deliver one or more of our programs and they will continue to do so, and we will expand that process.

I want to take this opportunity to encourage all members of this assembly to ensure that their communities take up the challenge of providing affordable housing by using the resources of the ministry and of this government. I take that opportunity as well to mention this to the honourable member opposite about his community and its commitment to making sure that affordable housing will be built everywhere in Ontario.

All of us in the Legislature, I know, appreciate the magnitude of the housing problems we face. The member opposite has made it very clear that he does. When people in this province need help, they must get help. When they need a place to live, they deserve a decent place to live which they can afford.

As Minister of Housing in this government, I am keenly aware of the needs of the people of this province. I live with that awareness every day.

The House adjourned at 6:12 p.m.

November 19, 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ARGOSY FINANCIAL GROUP OF CANADA LTD.

SUPPORT PAYMENTS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

TWINNING OF MISSISSAUGA AND KARIYA CITY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

RESPONSES

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

RENT REGULATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

AIRPORT TAXIS AND LIMOUSINES

ALACHLOR

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION INVESTIGATION

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

MEDICAL WASTE

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

SKILLS TRAINING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PETITION

CONTROL OF SMOKING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRAVEL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT

PREPAID SERVICES ACT

PREPAID FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

CONRAD GREBEL COLLEGE ACT

FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

TORONTO SKI CLUB ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION