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

November 17, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L007 - Tue 17 Nov 1987 / Mar 17 nov 1987

POLLING PROCEDURES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

OPERATION FALCON

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

KAREN LUGTIGHEID

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

FARM TAX REBATE

INCINERATORS

REACTIONS TO VACCINES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

HOUSING ALLOCATIONS

RENT REGULATION

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

OPERATION FALCON

YOUNG OFFENDERS

WOMEN’S HEALTH CLINICS

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

FONDS DU PATRIMOINE DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO

CHILD CARE

INCINERATORS

AUTO PACT

RENT REGULATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SUDBURY CARDIO-THORACIC FOUNDATION ACT

IRISH IMMIGRANTS’ SESQUICENTENNIAL ACT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

DENTAL CARE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

POLLING PROCEDURES

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in accordance with

section 88 of the Election Act I have today laid upon the table the interim report on the late opening of the polls in Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

OPERATION FALCON

Mr. Wildman: I want to bring to the House’s attention the Operation Falcon fiasco and to state that in our view the provincial government should institute a formal government investigation as quickly as possible into this whole matter.

As a result of this so-called investigation, two wildlife smugglers appear to have escaped criminal charges while, at the same time, 96 charges have been laid against residents of this country, all of which have failed.

For the sake of preservation of Canadian wildlife and Canadian civil liberties, a number of questions must be answered so that the mistakes of Operation Falcon are not repeated. The Ministry of Natural Resources must make clear exactly what its role was in this operation, what was the cost to the Treasury and the number of man-hours that were expended. It must be made clear why the Ministry of Natural Resources would print and circulate a report including accusations which were unsubstantiated by evidence against Ontario conservationists and business people, which led to serious injury to their personal reputations.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Sterling: Over the last week, this government has released two questionable reports on the free trade agreement. If we accept the statement of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) that he wants to bring a degree of intellectual rigour to this discussion -- a view which is not shared by his Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Munro), I might add -- then obviously these reports are not a crass political attempt to sway public opinion. No, they are simply badly researched written documents.

To assist the Premier and “the minister against trade” and their bureaucrats in dealing with their obvious deficiency in this area, I have purchased for the Premier a book. It is entitled The Report Writer’s Manual and it was written by two college professors from Oakville. It has startling bits of information in it like, “What is a report?” “How can you recognize a report?” and “Making a report professional.”

Among other things, it explains what a footnote is and how a footnote is used to separate facts from the report writer’s opinions. The Premier will know that yesterday’s report had a grand total of four footnotes, denoting an impartial source -- the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology -- in the bulk of the written report.

I am glad to send this manual over to the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon). Perhaps he can share it with “the minister against trade” so that we can finally get some neutral and professional opinions on the free trade agreement.

KAREN LUGTIGHEID

Mr. McGuigan: It is a tradition in this Legislature to honour an Ontarian who has acquired world-class status in his or her chosen field. We have recognized Professor Polanyi for his efforts in science and Ben Johnson for his accomplishments in sports.

Today I ask the House to join me in congratulating another world champion. She is 13-year-old Karen Lugtigheid of Blenheim. Karen is the youngest ever to win the Ontario world soybean championship judged at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. Her entry required many hours of growing, sorting and polishing for her to be judged world champion and receive the award, which was presented this morning at the winter fair grounds.

Karen is continuing a family tradition. Her brother Peter won the world championship last year and her brother David won two years in a row. All are members of the Blenheim 4-H Craft Club and deserve recognition in this House as world-class competitors.

I ask members to join me in congratulating her family; her parents, John and Joan; and of course Karen, her 4-H club members and her friends at the Calvin Christian School where Karen is a grade 8 student.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: My statement is particularly for the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon). This morning I was contacted by the wife of a man whom the insurance companies have found guilty of making an illegal left turn or not giving the right of way even though the courts have yet to deal with his case. Both this man and his employer fear reprisals from the insurance company involved, so I will not use their names, although we talked to both parties.

Mr. X is losing his job because of plant closure and had secured a part-time job as a driver. It was to be full-time when he would no longer be at the plant. Because of his accident, his new employer’s insurer says premiums on the vehicle will increase by $5,000 per year, even though Mr. X was driving his own car at the time of the accident. With this additional premium, the employer cannot afford to keep Mr. X; thus, his part-time job and dream of a new full-time employment are gone.

The jobs of numerous other drivers in Ontario are jeopardized in the same manner. Not only do the insurance companies, which this Liberal government so unashamedly defends, have more to do with who drives on our roads than the law does, they frequently determine who can work. This government must stop playing Charlie McCarthy for the insurance companies and end this kind of insurance terrorism against people who by law are still innocent of what is at most a minor offence.

FARM TAX REBATE

Mr. Villeneuve: A week ago I asked the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) why seniors retired on nonactive farms had had their tax burdens increased. I have received calls and letters about this problem and letters have appeared in the local weekly and daily papers.

In response, the minister conjured up some illusions. He said he had been generous and implied that these seniors were receiving even more money. The truth is that they are not. The information the minister gave this House was clearly not correct, but I believe it was not deliberately meant to be so. The minister’s staff is now aware of the problem.

The effect is that a senior who has retired on a nonproducing farm must now pay the entire tax on the farm land. The senior’s eligibility for a tax grant on the property has been taken away for everything except the house and one acre. Seniors in this forgotten category have not been able to rent out their farm acreage and do not have the gross farm income to qualify under the farm tax rebate program. As a result, if a senior has 100 acres of farm land, he or she must pay full taxes.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food will not let the house be severed and the senior ends up stuck in a vicious, bureaucratic circle. The minister must look into restoring seniors’ property tax grants for this category of senior. This discriminatory practice must be corrected at once.

INCINERATORS

Mr. Morin-Strom: The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) must respond to serious concerns about the incineration practices at the two hospitals in Sault Ste. Marie and the resulting environmental hazard that is posed for local residents.

Under a new Ministry of the Environment regulation, hospitals must incinerate pathological and infectious wastes rather than dumping them. However, the ageing hospital incinerators, especially at the Plummer Memorial Public Hospital, are not capable of meeting ministry standards. MOE officials admit that ash particles from the incinerators are frequently seen floating around the hospital neighbourhood.

Dr. Joseph Cummins, the University of Western Ontario genetics professor who has studied problems of hospital incinerators, has stated that if any ashy substance is released from an incinerator, it should be shut down because the substance could cause cancer and birth defects. Algoma’s acting medical officer of health, Dr. Charles Eaid, has insisted that emission samples be tested to ensure the public’s health and safety. Inexplicably, the Ministry of the Environment officials now say that extensive tests are unlikely because of the cost. Meanwhile, tests are going on or are beginning on seven incinerators in southern Ontario.

Clearly, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health should get together immediately on this issue to protect the environment and health of Sault residents. Responsible action is needed now. Why must we be left at risk?

REACTIONS TO VACCINES

Mr. Jackson: Bill 98, which is a bill passed in this House back on June 26, radically amended legislation to assist families that had vaccine-damaged children so as to prevent recurrences in this province. When the Minister of Health tables her Health Promotion Matters in Ontario, I hope she will be as concerned with style as she will be with the process and will honour the government’s commitment, as contained in Bill 98, to ensure that we have a proper adverse-reaction reporting mechanism established through her ministry.

In the total absence of support from the government, the Ontario Medical Association is to be congratulated for providing leadership in this very sensitive area, which is clearly set out in the most recent OMA bulletin, which says, “We challenge the ministry to provide positions in health units with the resources required to fulfil these new obligations.”

The hundreds of children who have died as a result of adverse reactions require the minister’s help.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. B. Rae: I was expecting the Premier to be here.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Premier will be here shortly.

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand you wish to stand down your questioning? Is that agreed?

Agreed to.

Mr. Brandt: We will stand down our first question, but we can proceed with the second question.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt: The question I have is to the Minister of Northern Development. It is in regard to the report that was released identifying certain import-sensitive industries in Ontario, which the minister may recall was released by his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter).

Will the minister indicate, as the minister for northern development, which parts of this province has that report identified as benefiting from a trade agreement with the United States?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: In answer to the leader of the third party, I just came back from the north today. If he is talking about the last report yesterday, I saw what was on TV but I did not read it. That is all I can say at this point.

Mr. Brandt: To be of some assistance to the minister, in the report that was released by his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, it was pointed out very clearly that a very substantial number of industries in northern Ontario would benefit from free trade and that there would be a rather significant amount of employment and job enhancement as a result of those industries, which are very sensitive to exports in terms of their continued viability.

With that being the operative part of the report that I wanted to bring to the minister’s attention, will he then indicate to his cabinet colleagues and to the government his support for a trade agreement that will create jobs in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I was in Thunder Bay on the weekend with the cabinet subcommittee on free trade and I know what the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) is talking about with regard to pulp and paper and mining. As for the sawmills people, last Friday they did not come out that strongly for free trade on account of the fact that they are still under the 15 per cent. They were not exempt; so the sawmills are not gaining at all.

At this point I can tell him -- he should know because he was on this side of the House for a long time -- that the forests in Ontario are at the maximum of production. I do not see any more sawmills and I do not see any more pulp mills. There will probably be one in Wawa if everything falls in good place; the study is positive not because of softwood but because we are going to use hardwood for the newspaper.

Another question the pulp and paper people did not answer for me was about fine paper. Fine paper could be a problem. The answer was that some will suffer and some will survive. We all know that. As for mining, they are all for it, but we knew that from the beginning. On the government side, as a minister I have to look at what is best for Ontario too.

Mr. Harris: This minister is supposed to speak for the north. He is supposed to defend northern interests. He is supposed to defend northern jobs. He does not even know that the report released yesterday, as flawed and biased as it tried to be, stated clearly that the north of this province will benefit substantially from a free trade agreement and in fact from the free trade agreement that has been negotiated.

The minister did not speak up for the softwood lumber industry when it had the problem. I do not know why he brings that into the discussion now.

He says there is no more wood in the Lake Temagami area. Of course, there is lots of wood; he will not let people cut it. He stated there were no problems with that mill; now we know that mill is shut down. Everybody is laid off in the plant, all the graders and what not. There is a little bit going on in the bush.

When is the minister going to keep up with his government? He supposedly sits at the cabinet table, supposedly at the priorities board or whatever they call their inner cabinet or inner sanctum. When is he going to speak up on behalf of northern Ontario? Why will he not now speak up on behalf of the north and support the free trade agreement, at least as it pertains to northern Ontario, as is his job?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: About Temagami, the member for Nipissing should get his facts straight. He knows things about Temagami that I do not have to mention in this House; he knows that himself. The problem with the mill in Temagami has nothing to do with the forest. The problem started in 1982 and he knows it, so why does he bring that up over there?

Mr. Harris: Because we saw it in 1984 and then you blew it in 1985.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Never mind. He did not start anything in northern Ontario. He gave all the forests to the big companies and the small mills had nothing left for them. As far as free trade goes --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Any further response?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I will tell the member for Nipissing that on Temagami he should tell the truth to this House. He does not want to tell the truth about Temagami and the sawmill there. There is a problem with the wood allocation, but there are other financial problems too, and he knows that. He should tell the truth in this House about the sawmill.

Mr. Harris: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I think the minister has implied that I did not tell the truth. I said the mill --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, no.

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: Is it my right to ask the Speaker? I think the minister pretty clearly implied it. I stated the mill in Temagami was shut down. If that is incorrect, then perhaps he could explain it to the 200 workers who are out of work. If it is not, perhaps he could apologize to this House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing has suggested the minister has used unparliamentary language. It was very difficult for me to hear.

Mr. Villeneuve: Is he parliamentary or not?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot say what the minister said. I do not believe the member for Nipissing stated the exact words the minister used, so I am not aware. Does the minister have any comment he would wish to make?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Si je dois m’excuser, je vais m’excuser. Mais j’ai seulement demandé au député de Nipissing qu’il dise la vérité par rapport au moulin de Temagami. Au moulin de Temagami, il y a deux problèmes. Il y a le problème de la location du bois et un problème de finances. C’est une chose qui existe depuis six ans; alors, il devrait le savoir. C’est dans ce sens-là que j’ai dit qu’il devrait dire la vérité.

Alors, je m’excuse si --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully, and my decision is that in my view the minister did clarify the fact. It was very close to saying the member did not give out the truth, but that is very close.

Mr. Wildman: He apologized.

Mr. Speaker: He apologized.

We will revert to the Leader of the Opposition.

HOUSING ALLOCATIONS

Mr. B. Rae: My question is to the Premier. I wonder if the Premier can tell us how many families are now on the waiting list for assisted housing in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry, I cannot give my honourable friend that number.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps I could tell the Premier there are over 27,000 families who are now on the waiting list in Ontario. Given that fact, which he was not aware of, I wonder if the Premier can explain how it is that the government in the last year underspent its budget with respect to community housing by nearly $41 million. Given a waiting list of that size, the number of families who are living in basements and the number of kids who are sleeping next to water heaters, can he explain how it is conceivable that it is possible for the government to have underspent money that was appropriated by the government of Ontario to the tune of nearly $50 million total?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I certainly recognize the problem and I apologize to my honourable friend that I did not have the precise figure at my fingertips. My honourable friend is right; there is a major problem.

Plans have been put into place. Unfortunately, they could not all be taken up in the first year. My honourable friend will recognize that we have an awful lot of work to do in that area, as does this government. We think the plans have been laid and they are in very good hands, and we will see some real results for this in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. B. Rae: It is absolutely intolerable that there would be families living in the conditions that there are in the province today and have a government that allocates money and then does not spend it. The Premier should know the money that was not spent could have provided for as many as 10,000 subsidized spaces in co-op and nonprofit housing in this province. That is 10,000 families who could have been helped who were not helped by this government, and that is not acceptable to us.

Specifically with regard to this question of underspending, would the Premier at least make the commitment that the money which was not spent and not directly invested in housing will be brought forward from last year and at least invested this year so that those families will not have to wait, so that the waiting list can finally be eliminated once and for all in Ontario and so that families who need to find housing will at last get it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The way the budgeting operates in the province, there is not a carry-forward from one year to the next year, and I am sure the member will be aware of that. That being said, I think he will see that an enormous number of programs have been undertaken that I think will make a real difference. I do not try to minimize the problem for a moment; it is a serious problem. But I think the minister has this in hand and I think the member will see some real results.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to ask the Premier what his response has been to those tenants who sent a letter to him in August of this year. These were tenants who sat on the Rent Review Advisory Committee. They pointed out that a loophole in the rent review law now allows developers and landlords to flip buildings and get a guaranteed return of any loss of investment they might have.

Despite the recommendations that came forward from that committee and from the legislative committee that dealt with that particular piece of legislation that this should not happen, the bill has been written in such a way that it now does happen. What has been the Premier’s response to those tenants?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Frankly, I am not familiar with the problem the member is raising in the House. I am willing to look into it and come back and discuss it with my honourable friend and share it with the members of the House.

Mr. Breaugh: This is rather important, because it does deal with what is known as the economic-loss provisions of the bill. When the bill was going through committee, it was determined that they would not be able to do that on a continual basis. It was talked about at that time that perhaps in post-1975 buildings they might allow for that once.

The bill as written now, and as landlords, tenants and Royal LePage advisory groups are commenting on, provides a very broad loophole so that they can, in fact, speculate on apartment buildings and are guaranteed that the tenants will pay the price for that speculation. Has the Premier no response to them at all?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member has raised a question here and I am certainly willing to revisit it. As the member knows, that legislation came through the House and was passed by a majority of members of this House. I have never pretended it was perfect, but we think it was a major step forward with respect to bringing the various groups together and trying to devise a system with some equity in it.

If there are major loopholes, then surely it is not beyond the ken of this House to revisit it. Whether the point is a valid one or not, I am not in a position to judge at the moment.

Mr. Breaugh: This letter went to the Premier in August, so he should have been aware of it for some time. Let me just read, and ask for his response to, the comments on the matter in the Canadian Real Estate 1988 Royal LePage market survey, which are remarkably similar to the tenants’ comments on the matter: “‘Bill 51 will intensify this trading,’ says the team, ‘because it has created an atmosphere in which a new owner is permitted to recover a variety of specified costs, including the costs of financing.’”

So both groups have agreed that speculation in apartment buildings will be increased because of the provisions of the bill, and that the loophole in the bill has been broadened substantially from what was originally talked about when we processed the legislation. The Premier has guaranteed that they can speculate and he has guaranteed that they will recover those costs by the laws of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have not seen the clipping the member is reading from. I get a lot of letters and I appreciate receiving them all. What I will do is take up with the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosek) the point he raises in this House and investigate it from all of its aspects.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt: My question is also to the Premier. It is in respect of the report, which we have taken some modest degree of exception to, that was released by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) relative to the number of sensitive jobs in Ontario. I would like to point out that from our perspective, after reviewing the report in detail and after some further research, there are a number of things we feel have been left out of that report.

I would like to bring to the Premier’s attention, as an example, importation of goods from the United States in the very sectors he identified in his report which he released in this House. The area of textiles, from 1981 to 1984, fell from 59 per cent to 51 per cent. In other words, textiles went down. Furniture went down from 49 per cent to 36 per cent. Clothing went down from 13 per cent to eight per cent.

With those three major categories all being identified as sensitive to importation of additional goods from the United States, would it not appear to the Premier that we are, in fact, competitive and are reducing the importation of these items from the US? Will he undertake today -- and this is the question I want to raise with him -- to provide in future reports that are going to be released by the government, of which I anticipate there will be many, a more balanced position relative to this very important debate that is going on in Canada relative to the free trade question?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As my honourable friend has pointed out, there will be a variety of reports written by a number of people who have perspectives as best they can bring them to bear on the subject at hand. My friend does not feel this one is fair. Presumably if it agreed with him, he would think it was fair. I understand that and I just say to my honourable friend, he is welcome to bring forward in this House for public discussion here in this Legislature, across this province and across this nation his

interpretation of what will happen under the so-called free trade agreement. He has so much research money now that he can publish his own reports.

Mr. Brandt: I am glad the Premier raises that point, because had he been in attendance at my response to the throne speech yesterday, I made some very small, limited contribution towards our concern about that particular issue. That is not my question.

My question was to point out the other side of the coin relative to our trade with the United States in those same sensitive industries that the Premier identified in that report, to show him how, with all of his 85,000 bureaucrats and the huge research funding he has in his party, as the government, he failed to mention that textile exports from Canada to the US went up from 32 per cent to 54 per cent. Furniture, from 1983 to 1985, went up from 92 per cent to 98 per cent. Virtually every single piece of furniture manufactured in this country is shipped south into the American market. In clothing, our exports went from 48 per cent to 81 per cent.

When is the Premier going to release a report that provides for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada a more balanced picture as to what this trade agreement is all about?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I disagree with my honourable friend. My honourable friend has given the impression that someone was trying to manipulate this report to give one side of the situation. Now, I say to my honourable friend that he is pointing out these statistics, which I do not have in front of me. I guess my question to him would be, if things are going so well now, why do we need the free trade agreement?

Obviously, the question is tariffs, which industries will be vulnerable under tariffs. Our tariffs tend to be substantially higher than those in the US, as my honourable friend will know. Certain experts are giving their

interpretation of what will happen in the long term under a reduced-tariff regime. That is the information that is brought forward. If the member wants to contribute to the debate with his extensive knowledge of these things, then I welcome his ideas.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier raises the question of why, if things are going so well, we have a concern about entering into a free trade agreement. Let me just say our party recognizes that the retaliatory powers of the US with respect to protectionism are a very real concern of ours. We want to enter into a long-term trade agreement that will secure those markets, secure those jobs.

The question I raise with the Premier, very simply, is this: In future reports, will he exercise his right as Premier simply to enhance the report and present both sides of the argument fairly, equitably and in a balanced fashion? That is all we are asking for.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend now comes back to his rationale for supporting the so-called free trade agreement. He says, and I gather his party agrees with him, that it will secure our access into the US market. I invite my honourable friend’s close scrutiny of this deal, because I do not think he can point to any provision of it that is going to give us any more access than we have at the moment. If he looks at the dispute settlement mechanism, all it does is enshrine US trade law at the present time. I say with great respect to my friend that I believe his analysis of the situation is substantially flawed.

With respect to his second question, let me say to my honourable friend that I do not write those reports, and I do not think he would want me to write those reports and put my imprimatur on them. He is asking me to manipulate these reports somehow or other to support his point of view.

We live in a free democracy. These reports are commissioned, they are put forward for discussion. If he does not like them, he is completely entitled to stand up in this House and say so; he is completely entitled to give his analysis of the situation. But I can tell him, that is a lot more helpful to this debate than engaging just in rhetoric about what he thinks may or may not be there, as some people in this country have done. I say to my honourable friend, let him bring forward his statistical analysis; then we will talk about the facts.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister has responded to urgent requests by Hamilton-Wentworth regional officials, including the chairman and health officials, saying to the press that Hamilton has no health care delivery problems that she is aware of. My colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) last week raised the urgent question of paediatric care.

Is the minister aware that throughout the 1980s, on a per capita basis, the government funded our region in terms of health services at 20 per cent less than the provincial average for comparable regions? Toronto, for example, was funded at $955 per capita, Ottawa-Kingston at $945, the London area at $959 and Hamilton at $781 -- a startling contrast.

Why would the minister convey the impression to our regional officials, through the press, that she thinks there are no regional health delivery problems and what does she propose to do to bring health care funding into line with the rest of the province?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to respond by saying I believe Hamilton is well served and, in fact, has a world-class facility, particularly the hospital facilities that are available to the people in Hamilton, and I believe per capita figures are not the best indicator of quality health care.

Mr. Allen: I might suggest that the minister would perhaps be candid with us in speaking on this subject and that, since her ministry lost the information file the region submitted last June in making its request, perhaps she was not aware of all the information that might have been contained in it about the problems that are attached to 20 per cent less funding for our region.

Since the minister is getting urgent requests from our region and from responsible and ranking officials, and since her ministry has not yet seen fit to do more than postpone yet again a meeting with those people until the new year, will she not find time some time between now and the end of this session to sit down with those officials and to learn at first hand what the problems are in our region, because they are significant? Notwithstanding the grand record that some of our teaching hospitals have, they too are underfunded in their own way.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I do not believe the pressures that Hamilton is experiencing are any different from the pressures experienced across the province in many different regions. I would state again that I believe Hamilton is well served by the facilities which I think the member should be duly proud of in the delivery of services in Hamilton.

Let me state I am aware there has been some criticism of my willingness to meet, and I want to state very clearly that I explained to my critic the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) the method by which we are trying to accommodate all requests to the ministry in as open and as fair a way as possible. I have agreed to meet with the chairman at the earliest opportunity, but I do not consider there is a crisis or a reason to panic and therefore I am delighted to meet with him at the earliest opportunity.

OPERATION FALCON

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources with regard to a confidential leaked intelligence report prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources -- a report, I might add, that has lost its confidentiality now it has received the circulation it has. This report served as a basis for Operation Falcon, an international birds-of-prey smuggling investigation that made headlines around the world in 1984, led to 96 criminal charges laid against 12 people in Canada, charges that have not produced a single conviction.

I wonder if the minister could tell this House when he first learned about the problems with the Operation Falcon proceeding; if he could tell us and confirm that, in fact, plea bargaining set free two self-admitted liars and wildlife bandits and that their evidence was used to justify criminal proceedings against internationally respected and innocent people; and just what investigation he has carried out with respect to this affair.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I hesitate to get too much involved in this particular question because there are charges directed towards the ministry and, of course, that puts me in a position where I have to be extremely careful as to how I react to the question.

I would say that if the honourable member is as concerned as I am about protecting the gyrfalcons and the peregrine falcons that are very much threatened, my prime concern is to join together with the Americans. This is a much broader issue than just Ontario. Indeed, it deals with all of Canada, with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There are many players involved.

I would hesitate to try to explain the whole circumstance, but I would invite the member to come any time to the ministry and I will share any information I have with him. I am sure he will understand that I am somewhat disadvantaged if there are charges pending.

Mr. Harris: I think most of the charges pending are against the bill the minister tried to introduce into the House to effect changes to the Game and Fish Act, a bill which he subsequently withdrew.

However, let me say to the minister that his own chief enforcement officer, Dale Gartley, said, “A lot of the information in this confidential report is wrong.” He further said, “Some of the private individuals should never have been named,” but he said, “The ministry’s only mistake was to let this information get into somebody else’s hands.”

The whole matter was proceeded with because of a false ministry staff premise, an assumption still held by the chief Ontario investigator, that falcons cannot be bred in captivity. To quote the Kingston Whig-Standard, “His staff proceeded down a course which resulted in the innocent being slandered and the guilty set free.”

Why will the minister not agree today to a full public inquiry into Ontario’s role in this wildlife fiasco so we can determine what went wrong, why it went wrong, what compensation may be owed the innocent individuals and ensure that this cannot ever happen again here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think the obvious has escaped the member. The fact of the matter is that if it was a confidential report and it was being circulated among those people for speculation as to who should be charged or when or how, it was not for any kind of public circulation. If the member has a copy of it, that is something that should not have happened. I certainly have not seen a copy and I do not want to see a copy about the investigation that is ongoing.

Underlying all the questions the member raises is my determination to protect a species that is very much threatened, which is also the determination of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States and all of the rest of Canada. I am going to do that to the best of my ability. As I said before, I have to caution the member that with charges pending we cannot get into it, but I am prepared to share with him, as a member of this Legislature, all the material that I have.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. I would first like to congratulate the minister on his appointment to cabinet. I look forward to working with the minister.

On November 4, in response to a question in the House, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) agreed that, anecdotally, one could demonstrate increased sentences for 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds under the Young Offenders Act in comparison to the sentences they would have received under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

Does the minister agree that this development is a discriminatory practice that was not the intent of the young offenders legislation in the first place, and will the minister outline to the House what steps he is prepared to take to bring a greater sense of fairness and justice to the differences that have developed in sentencing practices for young offenders?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would like to thank the member and congratulate him on his victory.

The question that has been asked of me does not really fall under my jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of my ministry is to take care of the people who have been sentenced to us, whether it be in parole, probation or incarceration.

Mr. Farnan: Ultimately, somebody will answer the question. It has gone to the Attorney General and it has gone to the Minister of Correctional Services. The Attorney General also indicated at that time that the Minister of Correctional Services and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) are considering and will consider my request to integrate all young offenders under one ministry, namely, the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- “are considering and will consider.”

My question is, how long does it take? Will some minister of the government please give this House an assurance that a decision will be forthcoming in a reasonable time frame and in a specific time frame? Just how long is the minister prepared to allow these discriminatory practices to continue to exist? May I please have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The honourable member’s supplementary does now fall under my jurisdiction. The division of the care of the young offenders, as we inherited it from the previous government, as the member knows, is that the Ministry of Correctional Services takes 17- and 18-year-olds and the Ministry of Community and Social Services handles the 12- to 15-year-olds.

At this time we are quite satisfied with that system. We are talking with the Minister of Community and Social Services about this, but that system is quite adequate. Both our ministries are building YOA facilities at this time and pursuing that, so that we can make sure we serve these people well.

WOMEN’S HEALTH CLINICS

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In last Thursday’s Toronto Star, there is a report that she published a statement saying the province will ensure that the Peterborough Civic Hospital’s women’s health clinic would go ahead.

The next day, Friday, the minister is quoted as saying, “When I spoke (on Tuesday) it was supportive of the approach they have taken without having seen their proposal.” In today’s Toronto Star, she is quoted as saying, “Caplan said it is ‘premature’ to decide now whether the centres’ locations will be announced publicly.”

Could the minister please tell the members of this House and the public whether that is what she has said and if there is some doubt in her mind as to whether she is going to make the location of these centres public?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In response to the question from my critic for the third party, let me clearly state the sequence of events and what in fact I said. When asked the question on Thursday, I responded that the approach that was being considered by the hospital in Peterborough was consistent with the approach the Ministry of Health was taking in ensuring access under the existing federal legislation to therapeutic abortion services for women in this province under a comprehensive women’s health services approach.

Mr. Eves: That is all very interesting, but I do not believe the minister has answered the question. She is quoted, also in today’s Star, as saying that she agrees with the timetable as laid out by Dr. Marion Powell, that some of these clinics will be open before the end of the year, yet the minister is telling us here -- she still has not answered the question; she is still refusing to identify where these centres will be. She may not make that public. There is some doubt in her mind, despite the fact she is building them with taxpayers’ money.

I presume the idea here is to serve the public and the women of Ontario. Why will the minister not inform the public and the members of this Legislature where these clinics are going to be?

When is she going to tell us? It is now November 17. She agreed that some of them would be operational by the end of the year. What is she hiding and why is she hiding it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The ministry is currently reviewing numerous proposals from across the province to provide women’s health services for women in need in this province. I believe the timetable that has been discussed is realistic, and we are committed to ensuring that service for the women of this province within the framework of the existing federal legislation to ensure that women have access not only to therapeutic abortion services but to all aspects of women’s health needs.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The short, simple answer is yes, but let me elaborate just a little bit. I have met with the francophone community in a number of locations in the province and clearly identified for them the responsibilities of my ministry, along with the rest of the government, under Bill 8, to provide francophone services where the numbers warrant them. I have committed that that will happen.

Second, I have pointed out to the francophone community that under the new directions for day care, there is a specific reference to day care provision for special-needs groups and the francophone community has been told that it is included in that.

The one point I have made to them, though, is that in some communities, particularly the larger urban areas, the need for just general day care is so great that I may not be able to move as quickly in those locations as I would like to, but the commitment has been made.

Miss Martel: It seems to me that in this case, in particular for the francophone community, the minister is probably going to have to take a very proactive approach in helping to develop their needs and helping to develop the services.

I ask him again what specific measures and funding commitments he will implement vis-à-vis French day care services in order to take into account such factors as (

a) the higher costs that are associated with establishing and operating a French day care system, (

b) the allocation of subsidized spaces in order to ensure that French day care centres are able to benefit from their fair share and (

c) an appropriate funding mechanism to help solve some of the problems associated with transportation to French day care centres?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be well aware of the fact that there is a commitment in my budget for capital allocations all across the province. The members of the francophone community who have approached me indicated that is their first need, just for capital funds in order to erect facilities themselves.

The second need they have expressed to me is the training of staff. As a matter of fact it is not any different, but they point out to me, and it is recognizable, that they have to have a specific kind of staff. We have agreed to deal with that. We have also agreed to assist them with respect to materials such as booklets, games and things such as those that might be more appropriate in a francophone centre than in another one.

The one area I have indicated I am going to have some difficulty with, and I still have some difficulty with, is transportation. I do not know whether we are going to be able to afford that or not, but with respect to the first three, I have given my commitment that we will deal with those.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Last spring, the Supreme Court of Canada lifted an interim injunction prohibiting the province from moving the radioactive soil from McClure Crescent to Reesor Road in Scarborough. Shortly after that, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) said he would be making a decision this fall about moving the soil. Will the minister tell this House and the people of McClure Crescent when this soil will be moved?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: I suggest that question would be more properly redirected to the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I have an objection. This was under the direction of the previous Minister of Housing. McClure Crescent was in his riding and it was his ministry that was responsible for --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I understand the minister wished that question be redirected to the Minister of the Environment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is quite correct that consultations have taken place with the Ministry of the Environment to determine, if there would be any movement of the soil, what the best movement would be. There are problems, as he would know, related to ongoing actions within the court. One action had ruled upon it, but other actions have been discussed from time to time. Until such time as all of those actions are cleared up, it is difficult to make a definitive decision on the specific movement of that soil.

Mr. Brandt: I had the problem solved.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman) volunteering to receive it?

Mr. Brandt: No, he did not say that.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He is not.

There have been consultations over a period of time, as the member may know, with federal authorities to determine whether one of the sites the federal government has available might be suitable, in view of the fact that the federal government does have responsibility for matters which relate to radioactivity. That is primarily within the federal jurisdiction, and those discussions will continue.

Mr. Cousens: The Premier (Mr. Peterson) said that no one in his right mind should be forced to live in this set of conditions.

An hon. member: That was before 1985.

Mr. Cousens: That is right.

The Minister of the Environment said there would be an announcement this fall. Now we go back to the new Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosek). Has the new Minister of Housing had any consultations with the minister on this important matter, which was traditionally an area of great concern to the former Minister of Housing? Has the new Minister of Housing had any discussions with the Minister of the Environment on this subject at any time? If so, what did she say?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I believe the member served in cabinet for a period of time.

Mr. Villeneuve: That was not part of the question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I simply say that because the member would know that discussions which take place within the confines of cabinet have traditionally been confidential, under the British parliamentary system.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member would also know, and I think his colleagues who have had experience would know, that discussions have gone on in various forums about this particular matter. As I say, there have been discussions with the federal authorities, between the provincial ministries, and this matter is under active review.

FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

Mr. Ferraro: I have a question for the Treasurer. In a recent meeting with some business people in my constituency, some concern was expressed over the proposed federal tax reform, and indeed, specific reference was made as to what ramifications it will have on Ontario. I would like publicly to give the Treasurer a forum to address that issue, with specific reference to whether or not Ontario has a minimum tax on corporations.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I thank the honourable member for his question. I want to tell him and the House that it is my intention to make a statement to the House in the very near future on this matter, as well as on the progress through the year as far as tracking our budget is concerned and to announce our payments to our various transfer partners. He mentioned specifically a minimum tax, and I notice that it is recommended by Mr. Blenkarn’s committee in the federal House of Commons and has been responded to by the Minister of Finance.

I think the honourable members would know that we have, as part of the spectrum of taxation in the province, a capital tax that is based on the paid-up capital of all corporations, including the financial institutions, which in some respects acts as a minimum tax. This has worked well in the past and it seems to be working reasonably well now.

FONDS DU PATRIMOINE DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO

M. Pouliot: J’aimerais adresser ma question au ministre du Développement du Nord. Même si le montant paraîtra insignifiant au ministre, il se souviendra sans doute, il devrait se souvenir, qu’il y a à peu près six mois, lors du budget pré-électoral qui a été déposé en Chambre en mai dernier par le trésorier de l‘Ontario (M. R. F. Nixon), celui-ci a jugé bon d’établir un Fonds du patrimoine du Nord de l’Ontario.

Hélas, depuis mai dernier, quelque six mois se sont écoulés, et aussi, hélas, nous en sommes encore très loin du rôle et du mandat précis sur lequel, sans doute, résident les idées du ministre et ses projets de demain. Je demanderais au ministre d’essayer d’être méticuleux -- essayez, Monsieur le Ministre -- et de nous dire précisément quand et sur quel projet il entend dépenser ces quelques miettes ou ces 30 millions de dollars.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je tiens à féliciter mon confrère de Lac Nipigon d’avoir été nommé critique du Développement du Nord. Je l’en félicite parce que je crois qu’on va être capables de s’entendre sur bien des sujets parce qu’on a les mêmes pensées en ce qui concerne le Nord.

Une chose sur le Fonds du patrimoine, comme il doit le savoir, c’est qu’une élection s’est produite depuis le discours du trône; mais par contre, on ne l’a pas oublié. Je dois préparer une présentation au Cabinet pour être certain que l’argent va être là pour les prochaines années -- pas seulement pour un an mais pour des années. En plus, je suis en train de délibérer, avec le ministère du Développement du Nord, sur les termes de référence du fonds. Peut-être que là, on devrait être capables de le mettre en place pour le 1 er janvier.

Mr. Pouliot: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I need some advice. I cannot use Spanish here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pouliot: I take responsibility for the faux pas. I withdraw my remark.

Once a northern heritage fund is disbursed, how does the minister intend to refinance the fund and what role does he intend to play in that decision-making process?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Le député de Lac Nipigon devrait écouter s’il veut avoir des réponses au sujet de ce fonds-là, parce qu’il a ri du fonds durant toute l’élection, puis aujourd’hui, on dirait qu’il veut prendre tout le crédit pour ce qu’on va présenter d’ici quelques mois.

Une chose que je veux lui rappeler, c’est que ce fonds va être dépensé dans le Nord, il ne sera pas dépensé dans le Sud, certain; c’est une chose que je peux lui dire. Alors, on sait par le rapport Rosehart qu’il y a des secteurs qu’on va regarder: le secteur de l’infrastructure, le secteur de la petite entreprise. On va peut-être regarder du côté du développement et peut-être mettre des fonds dans du capital de risque.

Alors, je sais que le député est impatient, mais une chose qu’il doit comprendre, c’est que cette recommandation-là a été faite il y a à peu près six mois, je suis d’accord; mais tout de même, j’ai été nommé ministre il y a deux mois. Nous sommes en train d’essayer de mettre ça en place pour la fin de l’année. C’est la seule chose que je puisse lui dire pour le moment.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The cost-sharing arrangement for subsidized daycare spaces is approximately 20 per cent municipal, 30 per cent provincial and 50 per cent federal, but because municipalities have discretionary power in providing subsidized day care, some municipalities in Ontario -- for example, London, the Premier’s (Mr. Peterson) own riding -- have chosen not to do so. This has created an uneven distribution of subsidized day care spaces across Ontario.

Can the minister tell us what role the municipalities should play in the cost sharing of day care services?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: A slight correction to the honourable member’s figures, because there are certain aspects of the day care program that the federal government does not share in at all. As a matter of fact, their full share is around 38 or 39 per cent, not 50. The province picks up the balance. She is correct in terms of straight subsidies. The local municipality that chooses to deal with these subsidies does pay 20 per cent.

The member may be aware of the fact that at present there is an ongoing review between the municipalities and our ministry over a whole range of cost-sharing programs, and day care is one of them. At the present time, I intend to make no changes with respect to the 20 per cent cost sharing, but that very well may change as a result of the recommendations that come from the review.

I share with the honourable member the disappointment that some communities, even though they are offered day care subsidies, choose not to pick them up. One of the possible recommendations could very well be that this would be a mandated program. I am not saying it will, but this could be one of the outcomes of that study.

Mrs. Marland: The minister has also said the province will provide mechanisms to encourage municipalities to include day care in new commercial and residential developments. Will the minister tell us what these mechanisms are?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The previous answer partially deals with that. We have indicated to them that just as we in this government have taken the initiative through the Ministry of Education to include day care centres in all new schools and through our ministry to provide capital funds to renovate empty space in schools, we have spoken to our municipal colleagues and indicated that when they are giving planning approval to new commercial centres, whether it be a plaza or a high commercial building, we would also like them to consider the involvement of a day care centre as part of that planning approval.

There are some municipalities that have indicated very strongly to us that they are prepared to do this. We have no mandate at present to require them to do this, but the cost-sharing review I talked about before would take that factor into consideration. If there are some municipalities that are going to generate for themselves greater costs because they take this initiative, then we are prepared to recognize that and pick up a fair share of that extra cost ourselves.

INCINERATORS

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I don’t know what it is. These are the ones I am afraid of.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Callahan: In the great riding of Brampton South, there is a proposed incinerator planned that requires an environmental assessment hearing. There is also a proposal for an incinerator at the airport or in the vicinity of Pearson airport. Is this a matter that comes within the jurisdiction of the Environmental Assessment Act of Ontario or is it an application of the federal minister?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This is a very good question. Contrary to what the opposition thinks, I did not know this question was coming or what it was about. They always think we know all these things and we do not.

The House may want some background information on this. No? I am sorry; the Speaker does not.

There has been a proposal. I have not seen anything in a formal sense, but there have been news reports of a proposal that would call for the erection and implementation of an incinerator at Toronto international airport to deal with the wastes that come off the airplanes. It would be such things as food and the containers for food and so on.

As some members of the House who are experienced in this matter may know, this comes under federal jurisdiction because it is on federal government territory and it is a federal initiative. Under our Constitution, that supersedes the provincial government. I have on occasions such as this, however, always indicated to the federal government that we would want it to subject any such proposal to the most stringent federal assessment that is available, and that that assessment be as comprehensive and as detailed as our provincial government assessment, but the ultimate decision will be made by the Minister of Transport, the Honourable John Crosbie.

AUTO PACT

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Premier. During the recent election campaign, the Premier’s party ran an election ad that outlined a number of conditions that came out of his speech that he made in Windsor, the famous six conditions. The ad starts out, “We would be better off with no deal if it is not the right deal,” and concludes by saying: “And there can be no deal on free trade if it guts the auto pact. Canada’s auto industry cannot be a bargaining chip, and that is my bottom line.”

I would like to ask the Premier very simply what did that commitment mean. What was the bottom line? On the date that these ads were played and the speech made in Windsor, how did the Premier plan on implementing that commitment to the people who live in every auto city in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the people who live in the auto communities in this province understand very well our view of the trade agreement. I am sure my honourable friend would agree with me that the trade agreement has substantially affected the provisions of the auto pact for the worse and not for the better. In spite of some people casting this as an auto pact plus, in fact it is not.

We have registered, as my honourable friend will be aware, that the auto pact was negotiated between two sovereign governments, between the federal United States and federal Canadian governments. Ontario did not participate in that. As he knows, we put forward our six conditions in that campaign. I am glad my honourable friend has paid as much attention as he did to our ads. He is obviously moved by them, and I appreciate that.

In our view, they did not meet those six conditions. This province stands unequivocally against the deal that has been negotiated by the Prime Minister. As the member knows, we are doing what we can do to persuade people of this country that it is not in the national interest.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: When the Premier made his promises in Windsor to all the auto communities in this province, he said there cannot be a deal if it guts the auto pact. He knew in August that the auto pact was a deal that was struck between the federal American government and our federal government. Why could he make that commitment in August and now not deliver on stopping the free trade agreement since it does not meet his six conditions and it does gut the auto pact?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just imagine that this deal had met our conditions. Then Ontario presumably would have supported it and it would have given a lot of weight to that agreement.

I say to the member that we are doing what we can do, given the way the deal has been crafted. The member’s leader has asked me the same question on a number of occasions, and I give the member the same response that I give to his leader.

This deal does not have our support. This deal is going to be debated right across this country. Ultimately, the member is going to see a federal resolution to this question and the people of this country will have an opportunity to pass judgement on it. That being said, we are going to do what we can to contribute to an informed debate on this.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friends in the front row over there are rather exercised. Their bitterness goes back some long way. I understand that bitterness, but let me say we are doing everything we can in our power to stop this deal.

RENT REGULATION

Hon. Ms. Hosek: I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in response to a question from the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I used the number 4.7 in the wrong context. The rent review number 4.7 applies to the increases in 1988. To the best of our experience in the past, the vast majority of tenants in Ontario will receive rent increases of 4.7 per cent or less in 1988.

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of personal explanation.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SUDBURY CARDIO-THORACIC FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. Campbell moved first reading of Bill Pr23,

An Act to revive Sudbury Cardio-Thoracic Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

IRISH IMMIGRANTS’ SESQUICENTENNIAL ACT

Mr. Pollock moved first reading of Bill 23,

An Act to proclaim 1995 as the 150th Anniversary of the Arrival of Irish Immigrants in Canada.

Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I would just remind the members that pursuant to standing order 30, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) gave notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) and that this matter will be debated at six o’clock this evening.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could help me to understand what happened to the second request, standing, as I recall, in the name of the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens).

Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, the member for Markham has withdrawn it. I have no reason. The member is not here to explain, so I do not know.

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. Dietsch: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my congratulations to you on your reappointment as the Speaker of this House. I look forward to serving with you in the upcoming term.

It is indeed an honour for me to rise today as the first member elected for the new electoral district of St. Catharines-Brock. The riding is made up of the previous Brock riding and now encompasses part of the previous riding of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). I pledge that I will continue to serve the residents of this area with the same dedication and purpose as my honourable friend and colleague.

I assure the House that as the first provincial Liberal elected by the residents of St. Catharines-Brock I will, God willing, endeavour to earn my riding’s confidence.

St. Catharines-Brock is an area rich in history and tradition and I invite those who have never had an opportunity to visit the area to come and experience the beauty and charm of areas like historic Niagara-on-the-Lake, Queenston Heights, the Niagara Parkway and the Welland Canal, which has a group of concerned residents working on the development of this historic corridor.

Our cultural, ethnic and agricultural heritage is reflected in such annual events and celebrations as the Folk Arts Festival, the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival and the Shaw Festival theatre. These are some of the attractions that enhance and invite tourism to the Niagara region on a year-round basis.

The riding of St. Catharines-Brock has a diverse economic base. This riding is the centre for automotive parts manufacturing and has a combination of both light and heavy industry. Our enviable geographic location, between two of the largest market areas in North America -- southern Ontario and northeastern United States -- provides area manufacturers with a distinct advantage to market access. Our region is within one day’s trucking of 120 million consumers.

Through such organizations as the Niagara Region Development Corp. we work to attract new business to the area on an ongoing basis. Agriculture is another important factor contributing to the area’s economic stability. I hope that all the members of this House have had an opportunity to sample some of the excellent Ontario wines and the delicious tender fruits which are produced in the riding I represent.

Despite our apparent prosperity, a dark cloud looms on the horizon. That cloud is the free trade agreement. It was apparent to me as I listened to the speech from the throne that this government was determined to fight for the people of this province, St. Catharines-Brock and many other communities like it. The cabinet subcommittee on free trade recently visited my riding to hear the concerns of local industry and local people.

As the committee is aware, this agreement spells disaster for our grape growers, our wine makers, our tender fruit producers and our auto workers. It is no secret that this federal government has given away far more than it has gained in these negotiations. The draft agreement does not meet the six conditions that were outlined by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as essential for Ontario.

Furthermore, compounding existing problems is the recent General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ruling. This government must be diligent in its support of our agricultural and wine industries. It is with great pride that I take my seat on the government side and prepare to join with my colleagues to meet these challenges.

The people of St. Catharines-Brock are concerned about the environment they live in. The pollution in the Niagara River and Lake Ontario are problems they live with every day. The beauty of this region is threatened by acid rain and by water and air pollution. Our tourist industry suffers because of the pollution in our lakes, rivers and air. However, under the excellent leadership of the Minister of the Environment, our government has taken important steps in dealing with this problem. Our environmental initiatives are highly regarded worldwide.

We will continue to meet these challenges with the progressive programs outlined in the throne speech but we will not stop there. We will continue to examine new technology to deal with these serious challenges. The steps that we have taken are in the right direction and we will continue in our quest for a cleaner, healthier environment for future generations.

During the recent election campaign, I found that education was a high priority with my constituents. At the top of the escarpment on the southern boundary of my riding sits our university. Named for Sir Isaac Brock, commander of the British forces during the War of 1812, this university in just 23 years has expanded to become a centre for not only academic pursuit but also social and cultural activities for the entire Niagara region. It is smaller than most Ontario universities, yet is highly regarded for its top academic standards.

This government in the past two years has made great strides in improving funding for colleges and universities to overcome years of neglect. The university now enjoys a record enrolment of 9,580 students. This has created great stress on existing lecture, study, parking, residence and recreational space. The administration has been innovative in dealing with the new projects, such as the science development fund, which helped develop a new facility for the science department.

Brock last month retired its deficit, which had been as high as $800,000. The entire community has raised $6.6 million for this university in just five years, which is an amazing achievement and illustrates the commitment our community has for this institution.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) was recently at this beautiful university to open a new language lab, a facility which will provide excellent training for our language students. I am sure that she understands the problems we face and we will accept the challenges to assist our universities in meeting the demands of increasing student enrolment.

Another educational institution in our area, the Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology, has made an important contribution to local industry by providing a skilled labour force. It has a history of co-operation with area manufacturers to develop programs specific to their needs. This college also boasts of co-operation programs with the arts, and it works with local theatre groups to provide hands-on training in theatre production and enhance the cultural base of our community, a very integral part of Ontario.

I applaud our commitment to expand the apprenticeship system in this province to include women and other groups who have traditionally found it difficult to participate in these types of programs.

My constituents are pleased with the commitment made by this throne speech to place renewed emphasis on the quality of our children’s education, especially in the early school years. The establishment of a select committee on education to increase the consultation process with parents, teachers and school boards is welcomed by parents across this province who wish to take an active role in their children’s education. It reflects our open, accessible Ontario government.

Our changing society requires that our educators be provided with the highest-quality resources available to educate our children. I am pleased that this government has made the commitment to assist our school boards and teachers by providing them with the dollars necessary to purchase current textbooks and replace outdated material. It is important that our children have the tools to help them adapt to modern society. Our desire to reduce class sizes in the formative years of our children’s education must be recognized as an important step in improving the quality of education in this province.

The development of new software programs and increased availability of computers in the classroom will help our educators prepare our students for the 21st century.

The riding of St. Catharines-Brock, like many other ridings in Ontario, has an important historical flavour. The people of my riding look to the government to help them retain our heritage with innovative programs which will assist them in preserving our past. The Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Munro) and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) are only too well aware of the importance of preserving the unique flavour of our history in communities across this province. I am sure they will continue to provide the leadership and programs necessary so that future generations will also enjoy the beauty these historical treasures bring to our province.

I commend the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosek) for her initiatives in terms of making affordable housing available to all and I offer my assistance to the honourable minister in the creation of a new, dynamic strategy that encompasses the socioeconomic factors of a feasible housing plan.

Another issue that requires our attention is the development and enhancement of small business programs that are already in place. It is important that we in government ensure that all who want to work can work. Small business has been, and will continue to be, a major source of job creation in Ontario. Especially with those dark clouds of free trade looming over our heads, it is important that we have trump cards to play for Ontario.

I congratulate the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) for bringing forward auto insurance legislation to provide a system to ensure that Ontario consumers receive fair coverage at fair prices. This was an issue of great importance during the recent election and our government in the early days of the Legislature delivered as promised.

The demographics of our society are changing, creating new concerns that this government will need to address. The throne speech outlines new programs that will improve the quality of life for our seniors, the disabled and others in need of specialized services and quality health care. We are aware that the changing demographic patterns create new pressures on transportation systems and housing programs. This government is committed to programs that will improve the quality of life for all the residents of this great province of ours. This government has a vision of Ontario, we believe, that is rich in potential for this province.

The people of St. Catharines-Brock have entrusted me with a grave responsibility, a responsibility that I will work tirelessly towards fulfilling. They have entrusted to this government that same responsibility and I know this government will work diligently towards accomplishing this mandate.

I am proud that the speech from the throne clearly illustrates the commitment we as a Liberal government made to the electorate of Ontario. We promised a new, vital alternative to the old and tired policies that existed before 1985 and I believe that our determination will make it happen.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I appreciate my honourable colleague’s comments about this being the member’s maiden speech, but in his concluding remarks I was hoping he would be a little more specific once again in letting us know where the Premier stands in regard to the wine industry in his part of the riding, about which he has said he is so concerned.

The Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr. Dietsch: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I stand on this government side and serve with my colleagues to fulfil our goals. I appreciate the opportunity to earn the trust and respect of the people of St. Catharines-Brock.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Would some members like to comment?

Mr. Wildman: I would like to congratulate the member for St. Catharines-Brock on his maiden speech in this House, but I would like it if he could clarify for us what is going to be done by the government to sweep away the dark cloud, as he called it, that is facing the grape producers and the wineries in his area. Since, as we know from the election campaign, the Premier did say that if the six conditions he set forward were not met there would be no deal, could he clarify for us what the government’s intentions are with regard to the regulations for wineries in his area to ensure that we will be able to continue to have a grape-growing industry in St. Catharines-Brock?

Mr. Cureatz: Of course, I restrained myself in regard to my interjections so that the honourable member would have an opportunity of responding at the conclusion of his speech.

That being the case, I again would like to follow up with him that indeed he does have a very grave responsibility, representing that area of Ontario that is certainly going to be severely affected under the new trade arrangement with the United States. We, of course, compliment him on his election for that area that was formerly partly represented by a Conservative colleague of mine.

That being the case, we would like to again bring to his attention that he is going to have a difficult row to hoe in terms of supporting his party and his Premier in terms of the vagueness of what the Premier has to say about the free trade agreement, and more particularly the area that is going to be affected, the area represented by the member who has just spoken.

I do not envy the member one bit, because he is going to be saddled by the leadership of his party, by the Premier, with some vague policies in regard to free trade and the wine industry, and he is going to have to go back home and try to sell it. It is going to be a tough job for him.

He is going to be scratching his head, driving back along the Queen Elizabeth Way, wondering how in the world he got himself into this position when he was elected on the basis of the five or six points that the Premier had brought out in regard to free trade, guaranteeing to his constituents that he is going to be looking after the wine industry in his particular area and knowing full well, over the next few weeks when he is driving home, trying to answer to his constituents in his riding office and on radio and in his columns, about the vagueness of the Premier’s commitment and how he is doing his darnedest to try to convince him that he has to do more.

I do not envy the member one bit, and I will tell him he has a big job ahead of him. We would like to hear some comments on how he is going to convince the Premier to be a little more specific on what he is going to be doing under his responsibilities about the free trade agreement in protecting the wine industry in southern Ontario.

Mr. Dietsch: I appreciate the questions that have been asked of me today.

Mr. Ferraro: I don’t. They stink.

Mr. Cureatz: Go tell the wine growers that.

Mr. Dietsch: Perhaps the honourable member would like to hear my answer.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on the honourable gentleman’s question. I will say that I do recognize the importance of what the grape-growing industry is going through with free trade. He will no doubt remember some of the Premier’s replies in the House when asked the question of what was intending to be done about the free trade agreement. I feel quite confident that the Premier is looking at the agreement, going over it with a fine-toothed comb. When the final legal text of the agreement comes forward for perusal, I am sure the answers will be put forward in a straight, forthright manner.

I feel that I know what my grave responsibilities are. I stand in this House to represent the riding of St. Catharines-Brock and I will do exactly that.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I want to first congratulate you on your elevation to your high office. I know you will carry out your duties with aplomb, and I am sure we will all enjoy your easy and friendly way of applying the rules to the debates in the House and ensuring that all members of the Legislature are able to participate fully in the debates about the affairs of the province.

I note I have scared away all of my colleagues

Mr. McLean: And most of ours.

Mr. Cureatz: I can’t hear way back there.

Mr. Wildman: I do not know exactly how to take the fact that the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) has crossed the floor and is about to join us on this side of the House.

At any rate, I would like to deal with the throne speech and to put forward some comments on behalf of the people of Algoma in response to this government’s proposed agenda for the next session.

At the outset, I am proud to have been re-elected in the riding of Algoma, to represent my friends and neighbours in what is the fourth-largest constituency in this province in terms of geography. I suspect many members do not realize that the distance from one end of Algoma district to the other is approximately the same as that from Sault Ste. Marie to Toronto.

It is a very large area and one that is very diversified in terms of the kinds of communities that must be represented and the concerns that must be put forward on their behalf in this Legislature. I do that with a good deal of pride that I have been reselected for the fifth time in Algoma and I hope this will be a productive session for them and for the people of the province in general.

While I do not have any members of my own caucus here with me, I am pleased that the member for Durham East has deigned to join me and that we do have, at least for a moment, one of the members of the front bench, on the Treasury bench, present with us this afternoon.

As I came back to the Legislature after the last provincial election I was not certain what kind of throne speech to expect. After all, we have come through a period of a great deal of activity, politically, in this province, the period of the two-year accord signed between the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party which brought about a change of government in 1985, a period where we were very busy bringing about a number of changes that were long overdue.

Obviously, from our side of the House, we would like to have seen further changes. We were disappointed that all of the reforms that might have been brought about were not achieved in that period, but I was in a way hoping that despite the change in the political configuration of this place we would see a continuation of the reform agenda that was begun by the new government with the co-operation of my party in the last House. I did not know whether that was going to be the agenda that would be put forward or whether we might see a change in the approach of this government now that it has such a significant majority.

I should say in a spirit of nonpartisanship, Mr. Speaker, as you know I am wont to do from time to time, that I do congratulate the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his colleagues on their success at the polls. Obviously, from my point of view and from the point of view of our party, it was disappointing. I do welcome the new members of the Legislature and I hope I will get to know them over the next months and years and that we will be able to co-operate on behalf of the people of the province.

I think it is important for the Liberal members in the House to recognize that, while they did gain a significant victory, 75 per cent of the seats in the assembly, in fact 52 per cent of the population voted against them. While this government has an enormous majority and a tremendous mandate to act on behalf of the people of Ontario, they still achieved only a minority support in terms of popular vote.

There is no question that seats count; I recognize that. But it is important, and I think it is a risk the experienced members of the House will attest to, that a government which has such a majority does run the risk of forgetting it did not get 75 per cent of the vote as well as 75 per cent of the seats.

I did not know what to expect when His Honour the Lieutenant Governor sat down to deliver the address I know he spent many hours composing himself --

Mr. Reville: That is not how it is done.

Mr. Wildman: That is not the way it works?

Mr. Reville: No. It does not work that way.

Mr. Wildman: Oh. I thought after 12 years that perhaps that was the way it worked.

At any rate, I did not know what to expect. I did not know whether we would see a new dynamism on behalf of the government to continue the reform agenda or whether we would see a government that perhaps might be tempted, because of its success in September, to rest on its laurels, a party that might be satisfied to say: “OK, we have a period of activity, of change; maybe it is time to pull back a bit.”

I heard the speech delivered by His Honour and I must say I was -- I suppose not surprisingly for the members opposite -- disappointed. I did hope, as I said, that it would be a continuation, but I thought maybe that is just my bias. Obviously, I am not a member of that party; I do not see things the way it does. Maybe it is just I who expected more, and maybe it is just the fact that I am a member of the opposition and want to be critical that I did not find the speech as stimulating as some members opposite seem to find it.

So I thought that perhaps I should consult the public press, the media, that their assessment of the speech would help to give me a more balanced view, one that I could present on behalf not only of the 61 per cent of the voters who voted for me in the last election but also of that other 39 per cent who chose to support one of the other two political parties. I did consult the press widely, I must say, across the province.

I picked out a couple of comments, and I would just like to refer to one. This is from The Standard of St. Catharines. It is an editorial written on November 5, entitled “Peterson at Rest.”

Interjection.

Mr. Wildman: Perhaps it is a Tory journal; I am not sure. The member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) would probably be able to indicate to us. I think the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has on occasion commented on this periodical and how close he is to the editorial board. I am sure he discussed their view of the speech from the throne with them and helped them come up with this title, “Peterson at Rest.”

At any rate, it does say as follows:

“Tuesday’s throne speech was as dull as dishwater. Having come to power two years ago by kind permission of the New Democratic Party, Premier Peterson now appears to be resting on his laurels. At long last able to do whatever he wants to do, Peterson seems unable to think of anything that might excite the imagination.

“During the election campaign there were comparisons between Peterson and former Conservative Premier Bill Davis, who proved during the early part of his tenure that bland works. Having achieved his whopping majority with Liberals filling 95 of the 130 seats, Peterson appears set to justify those comparisons.”

I want to point out that this is not a New Democratic Party periodical. I tried to go to one that I knew would not ever be accused of parroting the socialist line. I thought that perhaps by choosing a periodical of the high standard of the St. Catharines Standard I would find one with an unbiased view, and I am sure we would all have to ponder carefully the comment that the throne speech was as dull as dishwater and that the Premier appears to have decided to follow the example of his predecessor once removed, Mr.

Davis, in the idea of following the phrase “bland works,” because this in fact was a bland throne speech. In comparison to the throne speeches of the period of the accord, it really was disappointing, in my view, and that editorial certainly does bear that out.

I do not want to bore the House with other editorials, but I would like to deal specifically with some of the comments in the throne speech. In a serious vein, I was interested in the comments in the throne speech about the economy of this province. At one point it states, “Ontario’s economy is fundamentally strong and diversified.” That probably is true in the sense of the boom we are experiencing in the Metropolitan Toronto area. There is an enormous expansion of economic activity in this area, but I think everyone here will admit that is not the case across the province. We have serious regional disparities.

To be fair, in the throne speech the government does recognize that there are regional disparities. It says there is a need for economic development in eastern and northern Ontario. It even says there is a need for growth and development in northern Ontario. It says that growth and development in our part of the province requires “ongoing attention.”

I am not sure what “ongoing attention” means. It certainly is better than being ignored, but I do not know whether it means the kind of thing the member for St. Catharines-Brock said in response to the questions about the Premier’s approach to free trade and protecting the grape growers and the wine industry. What he said was that the Premier would continue to look at it. I think that was the sum total of his response. I suppose that is some comfort, but it is not much of a comfort if all the government is going to do is to give it attention. It is a first step, but that is all it is, just a first step.

There were a couple of things that were mentioned in the throne speech specifically related to the needs of northern Ontario. For one thing, the government said it was going to introduce a buy-north program. We do not know the details of that, but it does sound as if it might in some way reflect an attempt by this government to deal with the need for import replacement. If that is what they are attempting, then they have our support. I am not sure though, particularly in regard to the comments in the throne speech about the need to assist exporters to expand their markets.

It seems to us on this side of the House that there is a tremendous opportunity to provide jobs by replacing some of the imports we now use by producing those products ourselves. I refer specifically to northern Ontario, where we are the third largest mining economy in the world, and yet we are the number one importer of mining machinery in the world.

In the previous government, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, as he was called before his unfortunate brush with conflict of interest, was kind enough to appoint me and my colleague the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin), along with the former member for Rainy River, to a committee of business and labour people looking at the needs of northern Ontario. One of the opportunities we had, at the minister’s insistence, was to travel to Sweden. I think the member for Carleton East would agree with me that this was one of the most stimulating and interesting periods during our work on that committee.

We visited a small community called Kiruna, which is north of the Arctic Circle, about 1,000 kilometres north of Stockholm.

Mr. Ballinger: I thought you guys did not make any trips last year.

Mr. Wildman: This was not a parliamentary committee, actually. I think it was much to the chagrin of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) that we went on this committee. This was extraparliamentary. There were parliamentarians on the committee, but it was also made up of business people and labour people, so we were somehow exempt from the rule set by the Treasurer that no parliamentary committee could travel over water. I do not know what that means but I think it was salt water we were not allowed to travel over, and we were able to travel across salt water to Sweden.

Anyway, we met a number of people in Kiruna, which is an iron ore mining town. It is underground mining, one of the few underground mines. I think the only one in North America that produces iron ore is in Wawa. Kiruna is very similar to that. The thing we found there that was very interesting was that they have a company called Kiruna Truck that produces underground heavy equipment like scoop trams.

Here we are north of the Arctic circle in Sweden and those scoop trams are used in Sudbury and Elliot Lake in northern Ontario. They export them from Sweden to northern Ontario. This is a tribute to the tenacity of that company and to the entrepreneur who has worked for a long time to develop that company, but it also points to the inability of the mining companies, business and government in Ontario to ensure that those kinds of products are produced here so that those kinds of machines could be used by our mining industry rather than importing them from Sweden.

Obviously, we also have a tremendous opportunity in producing machinery for the forestry industry and for the pulp and paper industry. While we were in Sweden, I did not have the opportunity to do it, but the member for Carleton East did: he went to a small community where they produce scarifiers. This company -- l think it only employed somewhere around nine or 10 people -- produces all the scarifiers that are used in the world market. We import those scarifiers to Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario.

For those members who may not know what a scarifier is, it is the machine that is used to work up the ground after there has been a cutover, after the area has been cut. It is sort of like a harrow in farming, a disc or a harrow, to dig up the ground, to loosen it up to make it possible for planting to take place.

Mr. McCague: Where do you farm?

An hon. member: We thought it was an NDP critic.

Mr. Wildman: We have been known at some times to use the -- at any rate, it seemed to me very strange that a company in a very small community near Ostersund in Sweden would be producing these kinds of machines that are imported to northwestern Ontario and used there when the most interesting part of this is that the original design for those scarifiers came from northern Ontario. The technology was developed here and the entrepreneur, the company in Sweden, imported that technology, developed it further and now is exporting that machinery to northern Ontario.

It is a fact that is ignored by many members of the House and the general public in Ontario that the largest employer in this province is the forestry and pulp and paper industry. Directly and indirectly, that industry employs more people than any other industry, including the auto industry, in Ontario. We import a tremendous amount of machinery. Again, we could be manufacturing those machines in northern Ontario to provide the linkages to the resource-based industry we have, and there was nothing in the throne speech about that. There was a reference to buying north, but there was no reference to stimulating that kind of economic activity in our part of the province.

It is imperative that we respond to the needs of the north. The people of northern Ontario are known for their self-reliance, their creativity and their commitment to their part of the province. We have the human resources we need, even though it is a little less than one tenth of the population and covering something like 90 per cent of the geographic area of the province. We have the human resources, but what is needed is a government commitment to provide those people with the capital and the assistance that are necessary to diversify the economy of our part of the province.

Mr. Speaker, as you will know, unemployment in northern Ontario currently is running at more than twice the provincial average. So while we have a boom in Metropolitan Toronto, there is anything but a boom taking place in northern Ontario. We have not really recovered from the recession of 1982 as yet. Certainly things are not as bad as they were -- and we are all thankful for that -- but we still remain very vulnerable.

We could in fact face another recession in the not-too-distant future. The developments on the stock market and the inability of the Americans to get hold of their economic situation do not bode well for the resource industries that are so dependent on exports to the United States, so we are very vulnerable.

There were a couple of other comments in the throne speech about northern Ontario. There was a statement that the government would be appointing a council to oversee and direct the expenditures under the northern Ontario heritage fund. Some of us on this side of the House have treated the northern Ontario heritage fund, as proposed by the Liberal government, as a bit of a joke, a sad joke. I think the members opposite could understand that if they knew something of the background of this fund.

Members of our caucus have been campaigning hard since the late 1970s for the establishment of a fund similar to the fund that has been set up in Alberta, that would use some of the revenue from the extraction of the resources from northern Ontario, some of the government revenue, return it to the north to set up a fund which then could be used to assist entrepreneurs; to invest, to give loans, to invest in joint ventures and directly to diversify the economy of northern Ontario. We saw this kind of fund as being developed along the same lines as the Alberta heritage fund, in proportion to the size of the population and the revenue coming from our resources.

The Treasurer admitted in this House some time ago that in fact a lot more revenue comes to the government from our resources than is returned to the north. So we expected that when there was a statement finally from the government that it was going to set up a fund, we would be getting one that was substantial, one that would provide the kind of capital that is needed to develop the resources of northern Ontario, and not just to develop those resources but also to diversify the economy.

So what did we get after last spring’s budget? We got $30 million. Thirty million dollars is peanuts, and it is a bit of a sick joke. I suppose to the ordinary individual, the ordinary family in this province, $30 million is a lot of money. It certainly is a great deal compared to what most people ever will earn in their whole lifetime, but it is not very much when you compare it to the total budget of this government, or even to the expenditures of this government on a few programs in southern Ontario.

Thirty million dollars: it is just a trifling amount when you consider that at the same time, in that same budget, about $50 million was allocated for the setting up of one plant in Cambridge -- $50 million for one project, $20 million more than the total amount for all of northern Ontario. I am not opposed to the investment of the funds to stimulate employment in Cambridge, obviously -- not at all -- but I think the comparison shows the kind of inadequate commitment of this government to northern development.

It is also interesting that $30 million is approximately the same amount that the government has budgeted as its share for the one project in Metropolitan Toronto, the big sexy project, the SkyDome. So we are getting for all of northern Ontario, the whole area, the same amount of money that the government is sinking into one hole in downtown Toronto. Perhaps the Argos are a higher priority -- something has to help them -- than diversification in northern Ontario, but I do not think so.

Anyway, we got this fund. We said it was not enough, but it is there. So we now have the announcement in this throne speech that there is going to be a council that is going to deal with the fund. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, what has happened to that fund since the spring? The answer is nothing. None of that money has been allocated. None of the small amount that has been set forward there has even gotten into the hands of entrepreneurs or other groups that want to develop businesses and jobs in northern Ontario.

The reason, partly, is that the government has not as yet even developed the criteria for the allocation of the funds, six months later. First, we do not get enough money and then we do not get any allocation and, only six months later, we get a council that is going to deal with the fund. I think that says a lot about the lack of commitment on the part of this government to northern Ontario.

I have talked about diversification in our part of the province. Obviously, we cannot remain completely dependent on the extraction and exporting of our raw materials, because every time we export ore or raw logs or semi-processed products from northern Ontario, we are exporting jobs. We have been doing that since the north was first opened up, and nothing has changed with this government and nothing in the throne speech has changed.

Frankly, I will say this, and I say it sincerely, I regret the personal comment made about my good friend the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) in the House today. I think it was meant in a jocular way and I regret that comment, but I must say I am disappointed that the member has not been more effective. I think he genuinely wants to change things. He is not another empereur du Nord, like Mr. Bernier; but I do not think he has the effect in cabinet to do it, and I regret that.

It is our position as New Democrats that there should have been a commitment on the part of the government to actually change the way things happen in northern Ontario, not just to continue exporting our resources and jobs and then to throw money back at the problem, giving small grants here and there to municipalities, to entrepreneurs and companies to try to ameliorate the problem.

That has been the history of northern development right from the outset. It certainly was brought almost to the state of an art by Leo Bernier. If the Liberals across the way or the group adjacent feel a little uncomfortable about having themselves compared to Leo Bernier, and I hope they do, I say that the government has the opportunity to change things in northern Ontario, and there is nothing in the throne speech that indicates it is going to do that.

We have suggested that the government should enter into resource planning agreements with the communities so that, when a company wants to develop an ore body or to get involved in logging or in forestry operations, in fact it enter into an agreement, a five-year plan, with the government and the community so that everybody involved knows the kind of infrastructure the community is going to require, knows the plans of the company and is committed to the ongoing expansion of the community. But there is nothing in the throne speech of any kind like that.

There is not even any mention in the throne speech about reforestation programs. Those of us who have been working in northern Ontario for some time will know that under the previous government, historically, only about one third of the cutover areas in northern Ontario were regenerated. Another third was supposed to regenerate itself and another third was left barren.

It is true that the previous government, in the last couple of years before its demise, set up the forest management agreements to try to get the industry involved in replanting the forests. Those forest management agreements deal only with the cutover areas that are happening now, they do not deal with the backlog, and there is a tremendous backlog, to the point where the member for Cochrane North, the Minister of Northern Development, would admit that in the Hearst area in 10 years we may be short of timber. Already in the Chapleau area there is not enough timber to support the number of mills.

Timber is being transported many, many miles to mills now because we have had a history of cut it out and get out. I am talking about this as if it were a problem, but frankly I consider it a great opportunity and a challenge that we must meet. I think we could produce a tremendous number of jobs in our reforestation program. As a member of the opposition, I hope that what I am saying is not falling on deaf ears the way it did with the previous government.

My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) would certainly agree with me that one of the ways we could be producing jobs and employment in northern Ontario is to ensure that we refine the ores that we dig out of the ground in northern Ontario in our province. The previous government continued the situation where companies such as Falconbridge export the ore for refining to Norway. This government likes to think of itself as a government of reform and change. Was there any comment, any reference at all to that in the throne speech?

Are we going to change the regulations to require that the regulations in the Mining Act are followed, that companies that mine in the north refine in the north, or even in Ontario at all?

We have had a lot of comments from the Liberal back-benchers making their contributions.

Mr. Ballinger: The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is a man with vision.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, I have driven him across the way already. We have heard from members of the Liberal Party in the throne speech debate. They have listed things the government has done or promised for northern Ontario, and that is normally what government members do in a throne speech debate. That is not unusual. It is not surprising, but I am surprised that they would in fact raise things such as the amount of money the government is going to spend on roads in northern Ontario.

The government, when it announced in the budget last spring that it was going to budget an additional $26 million for roads in northern Ontario this year, was a little taken aback when we said that was a pittance. The reason we said it was a pittance was that an official of the Ministry of Transportation informed us that it cost $1 million to build one mile of new highway in northern Ontario and up to $2 million if rock has to be moved. Anybody that knows anything about the topography of northern Ontario understands that we have a lot of rock. It costs a great deal to build roads. For $26 million what do we get?

I guess we get 13 miles of road, or maybe, at the most, 20 to 26 miles of road. I thought perhaps this was one of the government’s commitments to tourism in northern Ontario, that it was going to build one

section of good road in northern Ontario somewhere. I do not know where. I suppose it would then advertise in Ontario North Now and through their Ministry of Tourism and Recreation programs and say, “Come and travel on this portion of road; see what a good road is really like,” because $26 million is not going to do anything for the construction of roads in northern Ontario. There is a tremendous backlog.

One of the problems we have, I will admit, is that the previous government, through its restraint program from 1976 on, I guess, did not budget enough money to maintain the roads, much less expand the highway network that we have in northern Ontario.

We were told by the officials of the ministry that they must renew or upgrade about seven per cent of the Ontario highway system each year in order just to maintain it, but since 1976 the government has been maintaining only between three and four per cent of the highway system in this province each year. That means each year there was about a three per cent compounded backlog developing of roads that needed to be upgraded.

So it is a problem for this government to respond to that need, but $26 million was not going to do anything about it, much less the promise that was made at the time that this would mean we would in fact see the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway in northern Ontario.

The Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the federal Minister of Transport have been playing sort of an Abbott and Costello act about funding of the four-laning of Highway 17 through northern Ontario. It is sort of the “Who’s on first?” act. The Minister of Transportation says he asked Mr. Crosbie for $2.7 billion to assist in upgrading Highway 17. Mr. Crosbie has informed us that he stated in a letter to my federal colleague, the member for Kenora-Rainy River, Mr. Parry, the following:

“As no large-scale improvement program for the Trans-Canada Highway has been initiated by the provincial government, nor have any relevant official representations been received by the federal authorities, I cannot envisage any federal involvement in the project.”

I do not know what that means. I suspect it means that if the Minister of Transportation did make any representations to Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Crosbie did not consider them relevant, or maybe he did not consider the minister relevant. Either that or it means Mr. Crosbie thought the request for $2.6 billion or $2.7 billion, whatever it was, was frivolous and not serious.

At any rate, I think this is a bit much for the Minister of Transportation to go around saying he asked the federal government for money and it said no; and have the federal government, on the other hand, say, “Well, we haven’t had any serious requests; there’s no project planned and we’re not going to get involved.”

The fact of the matter is that we have a road system which is not up to standard, and that makes it even more difficult for us to develop northern Ontario economically.

I welcome the acceleration of some road projects in the throne speech. Highway 129 in my riding is supposed to be upgraded at a faster pace than was originally planned, and I welcome that, but it is important to recognize that there are hundreds of millions of dollars committed by this government for upgrading roads in Metropolitan Toronto and very, very little for roads in the north.

We all recognize that there is a tremendous traffic problem in southern Ontario, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, and there needs to be assistance for roads in this area. But there is no commitment on the part of this government to four-laning Highway 17 through northern Ontario. The fact of the matter is that once you get past Kenora and across the Manitoba border, you are driving on a very good road, a four-lane highway; and as soon as you hit Ontario, you are headed back into the bush, you are on a bush road.

There are a number of other things that have to be responded to in northern Ontario. We all have recognized in this House, I think, that there is a serious shortage in northern Ontario of medical services, which are taken for granted in the rest of the province. We have a shortage of medical practitioners and therapists in northern Ontario.

I recognize that in the election campaign the Premier promised more bursaries for therapists who might be prepared to go and practise in northern Ontario. I think the Premier’s heart is in the right place in that proposal, but the fact is, regrettably, it will not work. That is a continuation again of the same kind of approaches that were taken by the Conservatives in trying to attract professionals into northern Ontario, and it does not work.

The main reason it does not work is that medical professionals and therapists do not choose to practise in northern Ontario, not so much because of income or assistance for education but because they feel cut off from their colleagues in their own fields and they do not have the same kind of contact with new developments.

The only way we are going to resolve this is if we again follow the example that we saw in Sweden and if the government bucks the educational system and the medical profession and says it is going to establish a medical school in northern Ontario and training facilities for therapists in the north, so that we can train more northerners in the north and find that most of them will practise in the north after they graduate. They will be close to new research developments and teaching facilities in their areas. They will not feel as isolated and will be able to practise in the north.

It will cost a good deal of money, but if a province like Saskatchewan can afford to have a major university medical school and training facilities for therapists in its small province, an area of our province which has approximately the same population as Saskatchewan could, in fact, support the same, if this government was prepared to do it. There was no comment at all about that in the throne speech.

There is a comment in the throne speech that there is an effort by the government to have more services for the elderly to assist them to stay in their own homes, and I welcome that. There was a pilot project in my part of the province on that over the last couple of years that has proved very successful. I want to emphasize, though, that while we support that initiative, it cannot in any way inhibit the development of the EldCap program in northern Ontario. Specifically, in my area, there have been applications from Wawa, Hornepayne and Blind River.

The previous government announced that program and then sat on it and did not do anything. Nothing happened. I think there were 12 applications and none of them were approved; just nothing happened. Leo Bernier went around talking about it, and it was basically a lot of hot air because it did not mean anything. I suppose it might have been delivered if Leo could have ridden a fire truck into town with the siren blazing and the light going. Then it would have come about, but it did not.

When we got this change of government, one of the first things we as New Democrats put in the negotiation of the accord was the EldCap program, and the government said, “Yes, we are going to act on it.” Initially, they did go around, they accepted applications, they asked for consultants’ reports and so on, but the fact remains that as yet we still do not have any of those facilities and no comment about them in the throne speech.

Obviously, a lot of the comments I made about northern Ontario economy relate to what is seen as a major issue before us, and that is free trade. In the throne speech the government reiterates its concerns about the proposed Mulroney trade agreement. It states that we have not seen the final text and so we cannot comment on it. It says that the Liberal government in Ontario believes that the federal Conservatives have given up more than they have gained in these negotiations. It says, and I agree, that this proposed agreement does not ensure access to US markets and it states that Canadian products are not shielded from US restrictive practices.

All of those statements are quite true, but what is missing in the throne speech is a statement of what this government is going to do to live up to the commitment made by the Premier during the election campaign that there would be no deal unless the conditions set forward by the Premier were met.

The proponents of a free trade agreement with the United States have been selling it in northern Ontario on the basis that we need a binding trade dispute settlement mechanism that would get us out of the situation of having to continue to fight countervailing actions by United States industries and antidumping legislation in the United States.

What this agreement apparently sets forward is some kind of panel that will be the final appeal body. You would be able to go to this panel rather than to the courts to deal with trade disputes. That is an improvement, but it is not the kind of binding dispute settlement mechanism that the proponents said we needed. Even the president of the Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Corp., the Saskatchewan steel producer, has stated that this agreement does not protect us from antidumping measures in the United States.

Such a dispute settlement mechanism was one of the six conditions set forward by the Premier in the election campaign. The panel does not do that. All the panel does is review any decision that is taken, for instance, a countervail duty that is imposed, on the basis of trying to determine whether it is in accordance with US law; or on the other hand, if it is an American who is appealing, whether a countervail done by the Canadian government is in accordance with Canadian law. It does not exempt us from the full application of American trade law. Even from the point of view of the proponents of freer trade, I do not see how anyone can support this deal.

What did the throne speech say this government was going to do about it? In the throne speech it was stated that the Premier would introduce a resolution in the House, once the final text is brought forward, that the matter would be referred to a committee of the House. In my view, that does not do very much. It certainly does not assist the softwood lumber operators who are having to deal with the 15 per cent tax on their exports.

Again, I thought perhaps I was being too harsh with the Premier. I listened to what he said during the election campaign and I thought that just because I am opposed to free trade -- and I do not think it will help this province, in fact it will mean the loss of a lot of jobs -- perhaps I was being unfair and that I should consult again with some unbiased media people to see what they had to say about the agreement.

I have an editorial from the Ottawa Citizen. I do not know what the political stripe of the Ottawa Citizen is, but it is certainly not a New Democratic Party periodical. On occasion, it has been known to support the Liberal Party, and on other occasions it has been known to support the Conservative Party. At any rate, I thought that, being in touch with the national scene as an Ottawa periodical would be, it would be a good one to consult about the proposed trade agreement Mulroney has signed with Reagan.

Mr. Ballinger: No one told us this was going to be a filibuster.

Mr. Wildman: I am just winding down, but I have lots more if you like.

The Ottawa Citizen says: “The throne speech merely repeated Peterson’s concerns about the free trade deal signed last month. He believes Canada has given up more than it has gained, that security of access to the US market is not guaranteed, that Canadian exporters are not protected from restrictive US trade practices.

“However, the brief, seven-paragraph reference to free trade in the 28-page speech only hinted at what the Liberal government might do to block a deal that it considers to be disastrous for the province. Nowhere in the speech, for example, does the government indicate it might try to block the free trade deal, possibly by refusing to implement those elements of the package that fall within provincial jurisdiction.”

It is too bad the member for St. Catharines-Brock did not respond to that criticism in his presentation, particularly as it relates to the grape growers.

It is most disappointing that in the throne speech the government did not make clear what its “bottom line” really is on free trade. During the election campaign the Premier seemed to make it very clear that there would be no deal unless certain conditions were met, and now he seems to have moved his bottom line to the point of saying there will be a debate on free trade because these conditions were not met, but not that the deal would be blocked by Ontario.

He has even indicated that he does not know how the deal might be blocked by Ontario. He never said that in the election campaign. He never went to the people of this province and said: "We are concerned about this deal as proposed by Mulroney. We do not think it will be good for Ontario. We think it will mean a loss of jobs in this province, but we do not know what we can do about it.” That is not what he said to the people of this province. He said, “There will be no deal.” That is what is so alarming about this government.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: How would you block it?

Mr. Wildman: We hear one of the supporters of the Treasury bench, the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) saying, how would I block it? I did not go to the people of Algoma and say, “If you elect a New Democratic Party government in Ontario, there will be no deal.” In fact, what I said was: “I am very concerned about this deal and what it may mean for jobs in this province and I am opposed to it. I do not think this Premier or this government should have agreed to the negotiations and if this government has a veto, the government should exercise it.”

I also said that I thought the federal government should call an election on the issue before it is implemented and that if it was confident the people of this country were in favour of free trade, it should go to the electorate and fight an election on free trade. That is what I said.

But no, the Liberals said: “Vote for the Liberals and there will be no deal if it is not good