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

November 19, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L009 - Thu 19 Nov 1987 / Jeu 19 nov 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ARGOSY FINANCIAL GROUP OF CANADA LTD.

SUPPORT PAYMENTS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

TWINNING OF MISSISSAUGA AND KARIYA CITY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

RESPONSES

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

RENT REGULATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

AIRPORT TAXIS AND LIMOUSINES

ALACHLOR

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION INVESTIGATION

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

MEDICAL WASTE

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

SKILLS TRAINING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PETITION

CONTROL OF SMOKING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRAVEL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT

PREPAID SERVICES ACT

PREPAID FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

CONRAD GREBEL COLLEGE ACT

FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

TORONTO SKI CLUB ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

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. Sterling: As I was beginning my remarks yesterday afternoon on the whole matter of free trade, I thought it was very important to recommend to the members of this Legislature an

article written in the Globe and Mail this morning on page A7. It is called, “In Praise of the Free Trade Pact: Peterson Bid to Sink Deal Misguided.”

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

In fact, some of the dairy industry think they are in a better position than they ever were before a free trade deal and the negotiations took place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we look at the two main recommendations in these two reports dealing with the structure of boards, in the Roy report, the committee recommends that the Ottawa-Carleton French-language school board have two sections, a Roman Catholic

section and a public section. That is the basis of the structure on which Mr. Roy and his colleagues set up their report.

Members may remember that during the third reading of Bill 30 I put forward an amendment to Bill 30 to permit various sections or parts of this province to bring together both the Roman Catholic

section and the public section, particularly in areas which were sparsely populated, so that they could work together to provide education for both of the school systems. That suggestion was turned down by this government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Black: Don’t bring up the past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. McGuinty: I would comment very briefly on the remarks made by my neighbour the member for Carleton with regard to an

article in today’s Globe and Mail. I commend that to everyone. It was written by Hugh Segal, who is hardly a disinterested observer; he is an adviser to Mr. Mulroney. He writes very well, because I had him in class years ago and he is a friend of mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

À

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe she will, and I am certain she will bring back some very good ideas which can be of help to her ministry and other members of this House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the area of transportation, I am very pleased that the minister has joined us. The people of Ottawa West are extremely happy that this government, in the course of the election and through renewal in the speech from the throne, has announced the start of four-lane Highway 416, but the message my constituents want me to bring to the government and to the minister is that they put as high a priority on the four-lane link from Highway 401 into the Queensway as they do with the link from Century Road into the Queensway.

I would urge the government to explore whatever means and ways are possible to look into this, and I am sure we will have many discussions in the future on it. It is a priority of my constituents, and I do want to bring that to your attention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third, in his riding, and indeed in his city, he will be aware that there are many poor people and single people who do not qualify for rent-geared-to-income housing because they do not fit the criteria of either being permanently disabled physically or psychologically, or indeed they do not fit the criteria of being a senior.

I am wondering what his position is regarding acceptance into the housing authority for geared-to-income housing in this province of people who simply qualify not because they are members of a family or because of their marital status, their age or a disability, but simply because they happen to be poor. I wonder if the member would answer those three questions on the housing issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While the construction is just about to get under way on a major new office facility, we look forward to the jobs that are coming in the Ontario Lottery Corp. and particularly in the forestry section. Basically, the whole forestry

section of the Ministry of Natural Resources is being relocated at Sault Ste. Marie, something that makes important sense in terms of putting control of a very important industry and resource primarily in the northern part of our province in the hands of the people who live in the north.

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

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

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

We have to put more value-added into those resources, producing finished products whenever we can develop appropriate industries.

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

We have to have the people with the ideas and the knowhow to be able to develop those industries.

We have not been well served by the province’s technology fund. Its commitment to spend $1 billion over the next 10 years has been primarily a commitment to southern Ontario, to high-tech industry, not a commitment to support the very important resource sector and the associated manufacturing that should be going with that sector. We have never had a commitment from this province to a fair share of university funding in northern Ontario. I hope the new member for Fort William (Mrs.

McLeod), the new Minister of Colleges and Universities, will look very closely at what percentage of the university and college budget is going to northern Ontario and will reflect on the fact that we have never had a major university in northern Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is up to both ministers, the Minister of Northern Development and the Minister of Transportation, to go back and look at what the needs are and to look at the opportunity that is in front of Ontario for a major commitment on this highway. I understand that just yesterday the Ontario Chamber of Commerce endorsed our position, the position of many communities in northern Ontario, that within a 10-year time frame we should have the Trans-Canada Highway four-laned completely across this province from the Manitoba border to the Quebec border.

I hope the province will now respond to that, and I am very pleased to hear that the chamber of commerce is on the same side as the New Democratic Party, for a change, on an issue. We will have to see whether we can convince the Liberal Party to get on side with that issue as well.

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

schedule construction to ensure completion across northern Ontario by 1997.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I commend my fellow member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who has made this such an important issue for the people of Ontario, who has spoken so many times on it, and I know that we will continue to be working together to demand action from this government. We certainly need more than the bills it presented last spring, when the government committed to what it called the cap, a freeze and a rollback on insurance prices. In fact, in the bills that were presented, it was a cap that was not a cap, it was a freeze that was not a freeze and it was a rollback that was not a rollback.

There was absolutely nothing achieved from those bills, and we need to have something a lot stronger to protect the interests of the drivers of this province.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the agreement there is no indication that there are any winners. Even the winners do not know what they are getting out of the agreement. One of the winners was supposedly the steel industry, which has a very important component in my own community, Sault Ste. Marie, with Canada’s third-largest steel mill. The industry continues to be an advocate of the agreement but, when you talk to them, all they say is that it maintains the status quo.

All the free trade advocates used to complain because the opponents were trying to maintain the status quo, and now the supposed winners are saying: “We are happy because we have been able to maintain the status quo in our industry. We feel we can maintain the access we have had.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We, the Canadian people, have given to Americans a right to our energy resources that is equal to the right we give to Canadians.

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

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

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

The Sault, Michigan, has free trade with the US. It has had free trade with the US for 150 years because it is in the US, but it is an economy that is absolutely decrepit. The community has shrunk in size. Back in the 1930s, the Sault, Ontario, and the Sault, Michigan, were roughly the same size, communities of 30,000 to 40,000 with major industries on both sides of the border. The industries in the Sault, Ontario, have continued to grow while the industries in the Sault, Michigan, have all shut down. They have no industry left.

All they have is one university in that community and a very desperate tourism industry. Certainly tourism is not the future for northern Ontario; tourism is part of what we need in northern Ontario. We need industry and we need to do everything possible to get all the jobs we can get out of our resources.

The Sault, Michigan, has had free trade and has not done anything in terms of its economy as a hinterland of the United States. If we end up applying the same rules to Canada that the United States applies to its hinterlands, its resource areas, we are going to be in desperate shape right across our country.

If one compares comparable areas outside of the big population mainstreams -- Manitoba with North Dakota, Alberta with Montana or Wyoming, or British Columbia with the state of Washington -- one would come to the conclusion that right across the country Canada has always been fairer in protecting the areas that do not have the big population bases. We have a history of trying to develop and encourage reasonable levels of economy, good levels of living standards in those areas.

The United States is a much more unfettered market system and it lets the areas away from the big population bases suffer the consequences.

We have to have the opportunity for regional development programs in our country, and that is one of the biggest threats we are faced with in this agreement. The agreement does not provide any guarantees that we can continue our regional development programs. It will allow an arbitration board to make the decision as to whether regional development programs are, in fact, subsidies. We cannot risk that; we cannot let the Americans have a say on whether or not we are going to continue regional development programs in our country.

We have made a priority of giving a better level of economy, a better standard of living to the areas of our country away from the big population centres, and we have to have the right to continue to do so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland) made some good points in terms of the rhetoric that is being put forward by the Liberal government and I can agree with much of the rhetoric that we have heard from the Premier on the issue of free trade. What we have not seen is action from the Premier on the issue of free trade. That is what we are demanding from this government, some action, some steps that will ensure that the province is using and protecting its jurisdiction, that it will use those powers to ensure the interests of this province are maintained for years to come.

I congratulate the member for Lake Nipigon on his re-election, a tremendous victory in the largest riding in the province, and I look forward to fighting these issues of concern to northern Ontario for many years to come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to turn to the

section in the throne speech dealing with health for seniors and the disabled, the

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

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

I make reference to a problem I have had in my riding where an older man went into the hospital and had both legs amputated because he was a diabetic. His wife tried to provide some services in her home so that when he returned he would have the advantage of a ramp and certain facilities that were needed. She tried to complete the application forms. She had the hospitalization, the amputation and all the problems relating to her husband’s illness, and at the same time she was obligated to fill out the forms. The inevitable happened.

She did not fill them out in time, so she was denied assistance for providing the services her husband needed. She went ahead without approval, so then she lost her right.

I have mentioned this to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini), and I will send over some material on it later.

What I would propose is that there be a provincial co-ordinating agency so that the services of the seniors and the disabled are all tied together, one ministry that could oversee all the programs so that an individual who has no idea how to break through the bureaucratic red tape of this jungle I have referred to can simply make one phone call and be given all the information necessary for whatever service, whether it comes under the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services or the Ministry of Revenue.

It does not make sense to have so many ministers responsible for individual programs, because an average person cannot understand them, and by not providing that information we deny him the opportunity to participate.

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

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

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

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

They urge the minister to get on with the job.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ARGOSY FINANCIAL GROUP OF CANADA LTD.

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

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

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

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

SUPPORT PAYMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

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

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

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

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

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

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TWINNING OF MISSISSAUGA AND KARIYA CITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

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

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

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

I would like to take this opportunity to provide the House with a brief

summary of how the $97.5 million in additional funding support will be allocated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSES

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

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

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

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

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

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

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

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

OPEN-CUSTODY RESIDENTIAL YOUTH WORKERS

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

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

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

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

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

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, I have.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

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

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