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

May 28, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L018 - Thu 28 May 1987 / Jeu 28 mai 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CLEAN WATER ACT

TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES

CLEAN WATER ACT

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

AFTERNOON SITTING

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHÔMAGE DANS LE NORD DE L'ONTARIO

TVONTARIO

JET POWER CREDIT UNION

ACCESS TO LAKES

PAUL RIMSTEAD

PROVINCIAL PARK

OLGA TYNE

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

GEORGE LUBINSKI

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

CENTRES OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

MINING SAFETY

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

RESPONSES

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

CENTRES OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

MINING SAFETY

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

MINING SAFETY

CENTRES OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RENT REGULATION

ONTARIO HYDRO

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

TVONTARIO

DUMP SITE

CENTENNIAL COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

GASOLINE PRICES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

ARGOSY FINANCIAL GROUP OF CANADA LTD.

INSURANCE

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PETITIONS

FUEL SAFETY

DRUG WHOLESALERS' DISTRIBUTION ALLOWANCE

TABLING OF INFORMATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE TRAVEL

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

BEEF CATTLE MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS ACT /

LOI SUR LES COMPAGNIES DE PRÊT ET DE FIDUCIE

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT / LOI DE 1987 SUR LES CONFLITS D'INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L'ASSEMBLÉE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CLEAN WATER ACT

Mrs. Marland moved second reading of Bill 41,

An Act to encourage the Rehabilitation of Water Delivery Systems in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for her presentation, and she may reserve any part of that for the windup.

Mrs. Marland: In rising this morning to speak to my Bill 41, I must say at the outset that this could be a little place in history for the Ontario Legislature this morning, primarily because, through my own personal experience in the riding of Mississauga South, we have discovered that we have a very serious problem with rusty water.

I have dealt with the problem at the local municipal level and subsequently had a meeting in my office with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment officials, including Dennis Caplice, the assistant deputy minister, along with the ward councillor for that part of Mississauga, Harold Kennedy, who is also the region of Peel councillor for the area; Don Markle, who is the commissioner of public works for the region of Peel; and Rick Anderson, who is president of the Applewood Homeowners' Association and who indeed is the president of the ratepayers' group for the area where a part of the problem lies.

Having addressed the local introduction for me to this particular subject, I want now to address the fact that this is not a local problem by any means. I would like to show what rusty water looks like in Mississauga South. This is a sample of the kind of water that is coming through some of the pipes in some of the homes in two or three parts of south Mississauga.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That's whisky, Margaret.

Mrs. Marland: As a matter of fact, I will send it over with the page to the member for York North (Mr. Sorbara). He might like to see what this rusty water looks like.

In recognizing that this is indeed a very serious problem, we also have to recognize that to the home owners, in the case of the people who experience this problem, it is not just a matter of turning on the tap and receiving something that obviously is not healthy-looking or appetizing-looking. We are assured by the local department of health that there is no health hazard to the water and that the water is tested regularly.

However, there is a real economic cost to those people who have this problem, and for that reason I will now show members an undershirt. It is certainly not a common sight in the Ontario Legislature. It is an undershirt which at one time was white. It is now brown and has very heavy rust stains in it. This shirt was sent to me by one of my constituents, and I am very sympathetic to the economic cost for a family which has this kind of problem with the laundry. Obviously, nobody wants to wear underwear or any other garment that looks like that.

The problem is not new; it is not new in terms of perhaps the last five years particularly. It is not a problem that has not been identified and recognized. Unfortunately, however, it is a problem for which the remedy has yet to be provided. The remedy is a tremendous financial cost. Certainly, the deteriorating condition of Ontario's water and sewer infrastructure is increasingly well documented. The Canadian Federation of Municipalities has called for an expenditure of $14 billion over the next five years to correct the situation.

In fact, infrastructure rehabilitation, which of course also includes transportation systems in terms of highways and roads, has become the political buzzword of the year with both the federal and provincial governments paying lipservice to the problem, but neither is willing to accept responsibility or to commit funds. Infrastructure rehabilitation is a problem of today and tomorrow. We are a young province. Our emphasis in the past has been on development and growth. However, we must now turn our attention towards maintaining the standard of living and the standard of service that we have built over the past many decades.

A fund to assist municipalities in developing an inventory of needs is not enough. My constituents cannot, nor should they be expected to, wait. In Mississauga, the councillors and elected representatives are all too familiar with the concerns of the new mother who fears washing her infant in rusty, discoloured water. We hear daily and at public meetings the horrors of damaged laundry and ruined household articles. In fact, there is quite an expense to bathroom fixtures, as well, in some of these homes.

In the region of Peel, there are some 275 kilometres of old, iron water lines that need replacing because they are rusting out. The cost of replacement is estimated at $50 million in the region of Peel alone, yet we know it will be considerably higher if the rehabilitation program is delayed.

Our local government -- the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel -- on the front line, has acknowledged its responsibility and allocated $6 million for upgrading of water lines in 1987, a hefty commitment in spite of a decreasing share of the tax pie that regional governments must work with.

Quite simply, the provincial government must stop the buck-passing and make a contribution. Rehabilitation must become a focus of established public policy. This bill will bring the issue into the Ontario Legislature, as it does today for second reading. It is time this debate began. My constituents, as well as the constituents of every member of this Legislature, have a right to clean water.

I recognize that my bill will have the support of the government today, since in the throne speech it made a very clear commitment to resolving the problem. I am referring to page 24 in the throne speech under the heading, "A Safe Environment." I will quote from this throne speech:

"Ontario's sewage and water distribution systems represent an investment of $30 billion. We will provide enriched support to help municipalities maintain and rehabilitate sewage and water distribution systems, and protect our beaches, lakes, rivers and water supplies. Funds will be provided for projects such as sewage systems improvements, sewer separation, beach cleanup, pollution control plans and agricultural erosion control."

I was particularly happy to see that paragraph in the throne speech of a few weeks ago, recognizing that the current government is now ready to deal with the problem, in spite of the fact that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has said in the past that he could not make progress in resolving this problem because the federal government was not in the position that it was willing to have anything to do with it.

I was also happy to see, under "Environment" on page 13 of the budget which was presented in this Legislature last week, that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) had also addressed the problem. In the presentation of his budget, the Treasurer told us:

"Deteriorating water and sewer systems throughout the province must be rebuilt before they require even more costly replacement. To determine the extent and urgency of this problem, $14 million is being made available over the next three years, to assist municipalities in undertaking detailed assessments of the condition of their facilities."

In addressing the fact that the government has allocated $14 million for municipalities to assess the condition of their facilities, I would like to say that in the region of Peel that assessment has been done. In the region of Peel, as I said a few minutes ago, we know how much is needed in terms of mileage over these rusty water lines. We also know very well how much money that would cost. We do not need more money to go away and simply count our pipes. We have done that.

I recognize that there will be some municipalities around the province that have yet to make that assessment, but I am also aware, through a submission of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, that AMO has recognized, through all its member municipalities, that the municipal funding of replacement of infrastructure is simply not possible without help from the provincial government.

When, for people to have clean water, it requires an added expenditure in some parts of the province as opposed to some other parts, then we are not dealing with equity for our constituents. In fact, I have a constituent who spent in excess of $250 to have a water treatment system put in his house, but the cost does not end there. This water treatment system requires filtering. It is a process of filtering and it requires filters. I understand these filters normally last anywhere from three to four months; in this home, they last about 21 days.

A new filter in this home is white. Within 21 days, that white filter becomes pure brown rust in colour. As we look at the two filters, we recognize how severe the problem is in that particular house. It is also a severity financially, because these filters cost about $38 a pair and you use two at a time. So that house is spending $38 every 21 days simply on filtering out the major chunks of rust in the home -- not the fine rust, but the kind that is in this kind of water.

At this point, I will reserve my six minutes and 49 seconds until the end of the debate.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to support this bill in a spirit of generosity and fairness this morning. I have some reservations about the touching faith that the member shows in the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I am actually quite amazed that the bill is, if I may use the phrase, as wishy-washy as it is and as tentative. It is uncharacteristic of the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) to be as tentative as she is in this bill.

First, if I could just look at the first

section of the bill, she leaves it to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to name the minister to supervise the act. Obviously, it should be the Minister of the Environment. Obviously, St. Bradley does not have enough on his plate as it is and needs another

Mr. Martel: St. James.

Mr. Foulds: St. James Bradley, that is. He needs another piece of legislation to keep him busy commuting from St. Clair Avenue to the Ontario Legislature.

Second, I have some problems with

section 5 of the bill, where the member indicates that "the minister shall offer the municipality whatever assistance it requires in developing a plan to determine how most efficiently to effect appropriate rehabilitation of that water delivery system." That is a very difficult term to define in law, "whatever assistance it requires." I hope the member will be able to indicate more clearly, in regulations that she can put forward in her windup this morning, what assistance she feels the municipalities require.

Then in

section 7, I do not want to use the term too harshly, but I really feel the member lets the government and the minister off the hook. She says, "Where the minister considers it appropriate to do so, the minister may provide grants or loans to municipalities to assist them in rehabilitating water delivery systems." I think we should have a much more clear-cut definition of what is an appropriate water delivery system, because I believe very strongly that

section 4 and

section 7 of the member's bill are very important and worth while. For those two sections alone, I shall support the bill.

I believe that clean water is the crucial issue of the 20th century. I am afraid this bill deals with a very minor and small proportion of the problem.

If society as a whole does not come to the understanding that both air and water are necessary for it to survive; and if society, particularly in the industrialized nations of the world does not realize that we can no longer afford to continue to pollute these God-given things that ensure our species' survival, then the species will not survive. It is as simple and as direct as that.

I am afraid the fact that the member is concerned about beige underwear does not really come to the heart of the issue. I think we need to look seriously at the state of our water delivery systems throughout the whole province, as the member indicates. I think we need to have an annual report by the Minister of the Environment to this Legislature about the state of those water delivery systems.

Merely upgrading those water delivery systems does not solve the fundamental problem of the pollution of our water. We have to stop the pollution at source. Obviously, we need to upgrade the filtration systems, the infrastructure in our municipalities, in order to ensure clean water for most of our urban centres, but we also need to look at the supply of clean water throughout the province.

I believe it is the toxicity of the chemical pollution of our water systems that is a far more urgent and far more crucial issue than the problem of beige underwear in Mississauga. l believe this is a very serious topic. I believe the subject is of utmost importance. If I may say so, I am a trifle worried that the member's approach has trivialized a very important issue.

But, as I say, I will support the bill and I would urge members to support the bill and put it in committee for some very tough amendments to upgrade and enhance this bill. I will support the bill, as I said, because of

section 4 and

section 7 in the act. I believe it is the first step to action to have a thorough and proper accounting, if you like, a listing of the facilities in the province and the state they are in.

That principle is, I think, a principle we endorsed in this party when we talked about forestry in this province. We felt the first step to getting a proper rehabilitation of the forests, a proper reforestation program going, was to get a proper accounting of what was available in our forests. Similarly, what we need in the province is a proper accounting of what our water delivery systems are like.

But fundamentally, as I said, we need to tackle the problem of pollution at source. We need to stop the polluters and we need to start making the polluters pay; and pay not merely in fines, which is simply a licence to continue to pollute, but pay by rehabilitating their internal systems so that they do not discharge toxic chemicals into our water systems.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I had not really intended to participate in this debate, but I really could not resist being here this morning. Having had a chance to analyse the bill, Bill 41,

An Act to encourage the Rehabilitation of Water Delivery Systems in Ontario, I want to congratulate the member for Mississauga South for introducing the bill, but I just wonder, as my friend the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) wondered, whether the bill really captured what needs to be undertaken in this province in respect of clean water.

The member for Mississauga South, the sponsor of the bill, gave not a dry speech, a very good speech, in support of her bill. I do not want to say that she was all wet in her bill --

Mr. Martel: Ohhhh.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: -- on rehabilitating the water systems, but I tell my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) that there were demonstrations in this House by the member for Mississauga South, who talked about those poor people in Mississauga who are suffering the heartbreak of rusty undershirts. I am glad that my friend from Mississauga South, in respect of the decorum that this House must maintain, did not bring in other items of underwear to illustrate the problem.

She did, though, pass me a jar of Mississauga water, which is indeed full of rust. Generally, what we used to do when we had this problem is run the tap for a little while. The problem developed because the water had been standing in the pipes for a very long time. By the way, the water at Queen's Park is not full of rust because we drink a lot of it in the House and there is no rust there at all.

My friend gave a good speech in support of her bill. I thought she would use some literary references. There are all sorts of great literary references. I thought she might say that in Mississauga there was, "Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink." All of it is in the washing machines ruining the undershirts of the province and, indeed, the nation, but she did whet my appetite and encourage me to say a few words.

I want to encourage the member with her bill, because the essence of the bill is very important. The issues that are raised, although skirted around in typical Conservative fashion, do suggest certain problems that I think we need to address as a parliament in a province that is industrialized to the point where issues relating to clean water and clean air are crucial to our future.

My friend from Port Arthur spoke to those issues and I think he made a couple of very important points. Unfortunately, this bill does not speak directly to the key issue and that is, what is the quality of the water going into these rusty pipes? Surely, the matter of infrastructure that my friend from Mississauga South points out is important.

There are millions and billions of dollars worth of infrastructure in the ground and in the air, joining us up in so many ways electronically, with gas pipelines from western Canada that are deteriorating, sewage pipelines which take the sewage to the sewage treatment plants on our waterways. All of that infrastructure is important, but the key issue for a post-industrial economy is and has to do with what is going into the system. What is the quality of our air and our water?

My friend from Mississauga South suggests that the minister, whoever is chosen by the Lieutenant Governor, should make an annual report, suggesting that the minister should report on the status of water delivery systems throughout the province. That is a good idea, but surely we should go further than that if we really want to tackle the problem.

I recall that one of our colleagues in the House of Commons in Ottawa, a friend of mine, Charles Caccia, who is the federal member for Davenport, wrote an

article that appeared a couple of years ago.

Mr. Grande: He is in trouble now.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: A Liberal member, I tell my friend the member for Oakwood. He wrote a very important

article in the Toronto Star in which he suggested that the true solution in terms of pollution is that industries in this province must adopt the mentality of, "If it is clean going in, it has to be clean coming out." That is the kind of situation we have to have. That is the kind of infrastructure we have to develop in this province, particularly in the industries. Frankly, we do not have that yet. We do not have a society, an economy, an industrial base that has adopted that sort of notion as the fundamental principle of utilization of our natural resources.

My friend the member for Mississauga South talks about the rust in the pipes in Mississauga. The issue she is talking about, clean water, is going to be crucial to this province, this nation and this continent over the next many years. Water used to be considered a commodity that was everywhere. I remember learning in grade 3 science that it was the universal solvent. It was to be found everywhere. Back in those days, we did not really consider that it was threatened in any way, that the precious natural resource was threatened by what we see today as severe challenges from a very highly industrialized economy.

Now, in a kind of North American post-industrial economy, we see great pressures on our water system. We see the southern part of the United States experiencing dramatic shortages in water. Are they going to be coming to Ontario? Are they going to be coming to Canada to look for new supplies of fresh water? It is a very important issue.

Mr. Foulds: If Ronald Reagan has his way, yes.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Port Arthur says, "If Ronald Reagan has his way, yes."

Mr. Foulds: And Tom Kierans.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: And Tom Kierans.

It is something we all have to think about and be concerned about. This is a very precious commodity. We must treat it very seriously, not only in the pipes of Mississauga, where there appears to be a little bit of rust, but also throughout this province, in the north and throughout the country.

Mr. Grande: You are minimizing the problem.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Oakwood says I am minimizing the problems. I do not think so. I think perhaps my friend from Mississauga South has restricted her concern in her bill to too narrow a problem and has not gone beyond the problems of dirty laundry in Mississauga and the cost of a $21 water filter. Certainly, infrastructure has to be dealt with, but I think there will come a time very soon in this province when we have to take an entirely fresh approach to how we are going to protect this very precious resource.

I live on a farm just outside Maple where, 80 years ago, the farmer who preceded me on that farm was able to dig about 20 feet into the ground and find fresh, clean water that he could pump up by hand. The pump still sits in my backyard, and it still works, by the way. He could be guaranteed that the water was clean, fresh, potable and usable. He could wash and bathe in it, cook his vegetables in it, give it to his children and give it to his cattle. That same water in that same hole is no longer drinkable, no longer usable.

The water I use in Maple is now pumped up from Lake Ontario, which is not all that great a situation. It has all kinds of chemicals in it. It has too much chlorine in it.

The member from Port Arthur suggests we will do away with the species if we are not careful, if we do not protect this resource. I think he gives it a little bit too high a concern. I do not think we are about to poison ourselves and wipe the species off the face of the earth, but it is a very important issue.

I am glad this bill is before the House and I want to indicate to my friend from Mississauga South that I congratulate her on the bill. I thank her for her bottle of rusty Mississauga water. I thought she would add a little something else to it. I did not try drinking it. It does not look very appetizing.

I want to indicate that I support her initiative and I hope, in her desire to bring cleaner water and cleaner laundry to Mississauga, that the tide is turning and that we will, under the guidance of my colleague the Minister of the Environment be in for some very good times in this province as far as the environment and the quality of water are concerned.

Mr. Gillies: I am very pleased to join this debate this morning on the bill put before the House by my colleague the member for Mississauga South. I am delighted that my colleague has taken this very worthwhile and practical initiative, which I will be pleased to support and which I hope all members of the House will be pleased to support.

I listened with some interest to the comments made a few moments ago by my friend the Minister of Colleges and Universities. While I am pleased to hear of his support for the bill, I was drawn to the comment my friend made, that he felt my colleague had restricted the focus of her bill too greatly. I would like to talk about that, because if my friend will accept a little criticism -- not personal, but in a general sense -- I think the speech we just heard is very indicative of the approach to a number of issues taken by this Liberal government.

The Liberal approach is to express a lot of anguish and concern about the generalities of whatever the issue before the House is -- in this case, the quality of water -- but not to offer any practical solutions as to what should be done. No practical solutions at all are offered by our friends in the government,

whereas the very specific bill put before the House by my colleague the member for Mississauga South does indeed offer some practical solutions.

The whole question of the deterioration of our water delivery and sewage systems in this province, the whole question of the maintenance of those systems, is one of the more pressing issues we have to face as a Legislature. I think the members would agree it is not a particularly sexy issue. The public does not, generally speaking, get in a lather over the deterioration of a system which is under their feet and is not readily visible.

We can all get concerned about potholes and the quality of our roads, as well we should, but we have an equally extensive and equally expensive infrastructure underground which also has need of our attention. As my colleague has pointed out, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has expressed great concern over the condition of this infrastructure and feels that nationally, in the coming years, we could see required an expenditure in the billions of dollars.

Certainly, the infrastructure under our feet in Ontario is estimated to be worth something more than $20 billion, and yet we do not see anywhere near the kind of commitment that is needed to maintain or improve that system.

In the recent budget, we heard the Treasurer say he was going to make available several million dollars to study the problem, to do an inventory of sewer and water systems in the province and determine where the problems are. I would suggest to the members of the governing party that is not what is required right now at all. A study has already been done -- the minister is well aware of this -- by the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association and it has already put forward its estimate of the scope of the problem.

The association said the problem is estimated to require something in the region of $150 million or $160 million a year for the next 60 years. Effectively, what they are really telling us is that the problem is going to require in the neighbourhood of $150 million or $160 million a year for the foreseeable future, because 60 years down the road the whole system will have to be revamped and we will be pretty well starting all over again.

We are not seeing anywhere near that kind of commitment and that kind of push from the government. When the member for Mississauga South brings in a very practical measure to address one part of that problem, I believe it is worthy of our support. Let us be very clear about the purpose of the member's bill. She is talking about measures to promote and assist the rehabilitation of water delivery systems. That is part of the overall infrastructure problem which, of course, includes the sewage systems too.

She is talking about investigation of the need for rehabilitation, but more important she is talking about assistance to municipalities in determining effectively how to rehabilitate their own systems, she is talking about practical financial assistance to the municipalities involved to reach that goal.

The reason this is important can be readily identified if one looks at a number of communities in the province. The one I am going to make reference to is the town of Fort Erie. The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) is not here, but I am sure he shares my concern that there is a situation there in which the municipality is really caught in a double bind. The double bind is this: that municipality has a sewer system that is completely incapable of meeting the requirements for treating the sewage generated by that town. Indeed, whenever it rains -- three or four times a month on average -- the sewer system overflows and there are discharges of raw sewage from the town of Fort Erie into the lake.

The problem Fort Erie has, and I use this as an example, is that because of this problem the Minister of the Environment has effectively put a moratorium on further development of that community. In other words, except in extraordinary circumstances we are not seeing new buildings, new developments and new sources of tax revenue going up in and around Fort Erie. At the same time, the Minister of the Environment and this government are not willing to put forward the kind of dollar commitment required for them to correct the problem.

I am sure the problem becomes readily apparent. We have a municipality that effectively cannot grow, so it cannot generate the kind of local taxation it needs to try to meet the need, and at the same time it is not getting the assistance from this government that it needs to correct the problem.

I was in Fort Erie several weeks ago. I met with the mayor and some of his officials. As Environment critic for our party, I can say that they are very frustrated indeed. They want to work with the government to correct the problem but they are not getting the assistance they need.

This is the kind of practical assistance my colleague the member for Mississauga South is talking about. This is the kind of practical dollar commitment my friend is talking about. If, in terms of sewer and watermain rehabilitation and providing clean water for our citizens, we are talking of a commitment of $150 million or $160 million a year for the foreseeable future, then so be it. This government has the money. The Treasurer has recently opened the books. We have seen his budgetary plan for the coming year.

They on the other side of the floor cannot argue that they do not have the money, because of course they do; they have a budgetary surplus. Where better could we use it than in ensuring we supply clean water to our citizens?

One thing the preceding speaker said with which I would have to agree was that the water quality issues my friend is addressing in her bill are very complex. We are talking about water discharge, about the purity of water being discharged back into the system and about the quality of water being taken into the system. With that premise, I agree. The municipal-industrial sewage abatement program currently being put into effect by the Ministry of the Environment is a small step towards the treatment of municipal sewage and waste such that we have cleaner water going back into our lakes and rivers prior to its being used by other municipalities and other people. But that too is flawed.

I will be proposing to the House in the near future a resolution that I believe is a companion resolution and is complementary to that put forward by my colleague the member for Mississauga South. It is based on this, and I will say this by way of conclusion: the program currently in effect under the Ministry of the Environment regulates only those 300 pollution sources that are dumping directly into our lakes, rivers and streams; about 300 industrial sources of that type of pollution. Members of the House should be aware that there are some 13,000 sources of industrial pollution that are not dumping directly into our waters but are dumping into the municipal sewage treatment facilities.

I believe, and I will be proposing to the House, that those sources of pollution should also be regulated. They should be cleaning up their act prior to passing along the problem to our municipal sewer systems. I think that, coupled with the clean water initiative proposed by my colleague, would put us much further ahead on the whole issue of water quality in our province.

Mr. Grande: I am happy to rise in support of Bill 41, which is the bill of the member for Mississauga South. I understand from other members who have spoken before that one of our concerns, a major concern, should be in terms of how clean the water is prior to getting in the pipes. Obviously, we must do everything possible to make sure that the toxic substances in the water are taken out and that the water is filtered and filtered well before it goes into the pipes for distribution to the homes of people of this province.

That is one issue, a very important issue. The second issue, which is just as important, is what is the quality of water the people in our province and in our municipalities get out of their taps? That is important because what the people see is the water as it comes out of their taps, the water that is supposed to be water that they can drink.

The member for Mississauga South sent me as well a bottle with reddish water in it. I guess if you disturb it, that water will become redder. There is rust in there. There is no doubt.

I brought along my own bottle. This bottle of water comes from a home in the riding of Oakwood. If I show the members this bottle, they will see there is a darkish sediment in it. If I were to disturb this darkish sediment, they would find that this whole bottle turns black -- virtually black.

I am not going to suggest or leave the impression in the minds of the members of the Legislature that this is the way the water in the riding of Oakwood comes 24 hours a day. Far from me to do that, because it is not true. The problem is that this kind of water comes out of the taps of the people of the riding of Oakwood more often than I or they want this kind of water to come through our taps.

The distribution system in the part of the city of York I represent in this Legislature is at least 60 to 70 years of age. The watermains have indeed deteriorated. What we have been finding in the last four years is that more and more of this kind of problem is occurring. This should tell us, it should tell the municipality, it should tell the provincial level of government and it should tell the federal level of government that some money, some dough, has to be put in, to rehabilitate if it is possible, or to replace that water distribution system.

The problem is that the provincial level of government appears to be interested, saying: "Well, we will give you some money, municipalities, to study the needs you have. You can go for the next three to four years and study your needs." But the federal level of government has discontinued support to the municipality for this kind of function, for the rehabilitation of sewage and watermains. The members will remember, of course, that Tom McMillan, the federal Minister of the Environment, has said: "We do not have a dime for that. It is not our responsibility. It is the responsibility of the provincial level of government and the municipality."

I just want to suggest to the members that that kind of attitude coming from the federal government is certainly not going to help us in Ontario, and the people of the riding of Oakwood and the city of York in particular, to do something about resolving this problem; which is a nuisance more than anything else but it is there. Four or five times a year, if not more, this occurs in almost every home in the riding of Oakwood.

The problem is simple. The water distribution system in some of our municipalities is too old and needs to be replaced. We need a lot of money for that. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has said we need at least $14 billion across Canada to do that; in Ontario, $6 billion.

I would hope that the member for Mississauga South, whose bill I will support, will be able to talk to the Minister of the Environment at the federal level and say: "Come on, Tom, change your mind. We need some money. We need some dollars to come to our municipalities in order to do that. Do not just shrug it off and say it is not a federal responsibility." People pay taxes to the federal level of government and people deserve those services.

The provincial level of government also has to make a commitment, and the commitment to conduct a study is not good enough in areas such as the city of York, where the water distribution system has deteriorated to the extent that millions of dollars have to be spent.

Last, the city of York does not have the tax base to generate the kinds of funds needed to provide or to rehabilitate those services. It just does not have the base. I do not know how many times I have to get up in this Legislature and say so, whether to the Minister of the Environment to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), to the Treasurer, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), or to whichever minister. The city of York does not have the tax base to be able to raise the money to provide these services to its residents.

As a result of that, the provincial level of government has to come through with funding so our services can be as good as -- as good as -- other places in Metropolitan Toronto.

The water distribution system has to be looked after. We do want Mr. McMillan at the federal level, and the Minister of the Environment at the provincial level, and the municipality -- the mayor of the city of York in the particular instance I am talking to you about -- to get together and say: "Look, there is a problem here. Let us put our heads together, let us put our moneys together, and let us get on and solve that problem."

In solving that problem, we also create a lot of jobs, and we lessen the unemployment problem that is there.

I would say to the member who brought forward Bill 41 that I will support the bill. I would have hoped the member could have been a little stronger in terms of the contents of this bill. In some municipalities, we have passed the point of encouragement or study. Our services, particularly in terms of water and sewage treatment, have deteriorated to the point where they have to be replaced. We need to have the money to do that; we need the federal level of government and the provincial level of government to work together with the municipality in order to provide those services for residents in our municipalities.

It does us no good for the federal level of government to be saying, "We are not interested." It does us no good for the provincial level of government to be telling us, "Because the federal level of government is not interested we are not going to get involved in it."

There are indeed very serious problems in the municipality, and we need the support of every level of government in order to accomplish our goal, which is clean water for the residents in our municipalities. It is one of the things we take for granted, but when I see this kind of water coming out of the taps of the riding of Oakwood, I say we cannot take it for granted any more. We need to do a lot of work, and we must get on with the job immediately.

Mrs. Marland: I am sorry the member for York North has left, because I was looking forward to telling him that simply running the water through these taps does not resolve the problems. He suggested they let the water run. In fact, when residents of Mississauga South let the water run, that is when they get large amounts of rust at one time and it does not improve the situation. In fact, it impedes the situation even more. Obviously, rust is not a problem only in Mississauga and that is why this bill is before the House today.

I would like to address the fact that the Minister of the Environment, in January 1986, which is about 17 months ago now, did acknowledge that the problem exists. Here again, I thought if the member for York North had been here he would have benefited from knowing this. This is not to do with the quality of water from the aspect he was arguing it but rather from the point of view of this bill. In his speech in January 1986, the Minister of the Environment said:

"Now, though, because of ageing systems, preventive maintenance and rehabilitation must become a priority. I assure you that I will do all I can to see that this happens. From where I stand, there is very little choice in the matter. We pay for rehabilitation of our municipal infrastructure now, or we pay greater costs down the road. The cost of inaction includes a deteriorating environment and increased health risk.

"In some cases, watermains will suffer from calcium buildup. Ground water will become contaminated by sewage system leaks. Sewage treatment facilities will be overloaded by inflow and infiltration problems associated with old and outmoded combined sewer systems."

The minister goes on to say:

"Acting now will save Canada and the provinces billions and billions of dollars. Acting later means, in effect, that we are squandering the efforts, funds and goodwill that built our current water-related systems by allowing to them to fall into a state of irreversible disrepair. There is also an argument to be made that any federal funds which go into infrastructure rehabilitation will be paid back in spades through job creation and economic stimulation.

"The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has issued a report demonstrating just that. The report, called Work, Work, Work, shows that an investment in public works carried with it the maximum multiplier effect. The report argues that improving the country's essential infrastructure improves its ability to grow and prosper."

I would suggest that all those benefits that were addressed in that paragraph from the federal perspective of our nation certainly have to apply from the provincial perspective of Ontario. While the minister addresses the fact that to have these projects put in jeopardy by a lack of federal funding is unfortunate, he also goes on to say, "Delay in infrastructure rehabilitation on economic grounds is an extremely unsound argument."

I could not support the minister's comments any more strongly than he has stated them. However, in making that statement, the minister has to recognize that these federal programs to which he referred, which now no longer exist, were not dismantled by the Progressive Conservative government in Ottawa but rather were dismantled before its term in office by the federal Liberal government in Ottawa.

While we now know that speech was made in January 1986 by the Minister of the Environment, and those were remarks to the Ontario

chapter of the American Public Works Association, we know that almost a year and one month later, on February 5, 1987, in comments made by the Honourable Tom McMillan to the first Canadian Conference on Urban Infrastructure, he said, "Let me begin by ending the suspense for you and for me. The federal government does not intend to restore previously dismantled municipal programs."

I think it is important to recognize that it was the Liberal government that dismantled those programs and, in fact, those programs did not address the need that is addressed by this bill in the Legislature today. Those programs for funding infrastructure were for new construction only, not for rehabilitation. There has never been a funding program for rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure in this country. That is why this bill is so important in the Legislature today.

Since we now know that the federal government is not in a position to replace even the new construction, I think it is time that in Ontario we discontinued this cop-out approach where we say, "We will do it if they do it," and, as a result, my residents in Mississauga South and the residents of all the members of all tidings in this province, if they do not face this problem today, certainly will be facing it in the near future.

Since I was asked by the member for Port Arthur why this bill did not go further, I would like to tell him that when this bill is in the committee, it will be able to be fine-tuned. The purpose of my moving this bill in the first place was to do what was needed, that is, to bring this whole subject into the public forum. We recognize the abilities of the members of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to help negotiate what the terms of the bill will be in order to address their problem.

It is with pleasure that I move this bill to the standing committee on resources development. I look for the unanimous support of this House, as it is a problem for every member of this House.

TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES

Mr. McCaffrey moved resolution 9:

That in the opinion of this House the federal government's initiatives to negotiate a bilateral trading arrangement with the United States should be supported as part of the government's multilateral trade policy, while protecting our political sovereignty, social programs, agricultural marketing systems, the auto industry and our unique cultural identity; and further that this House believes that the provincial government must take a more active role in the development of Canada's trade strategy and the trade negotiations, including clearly putting forward Ontario's position with respect to this issue of importance to all Canadians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. McCaffrey: I will be very brief. The substance of this resolution is almost identical to a similar resolution recently discussed in the House of Commons. What I want to do today in particular is provide an opportunity for two of my colleagues, the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) and the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), to add some very substantive and specific matters as they apply to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the whole question of tariff reduction. The member for Eglinton will be giving some trade figures and the member for Durham-York will discuss in some detail, time permitting, some agricultural impacts of this resolution.

The thrust of the resolution I think is clear. We want to see this government be far more definitive in where it stands on this broad issue of free trade. There is nobody in this assembly who does not understand the politics of appearing to be going slowly, appearing to be going thoughtfully and appearing to be protecting the manufacturing base and other business interests in this province. There is a century of history to that position.

I want, though, to give one example of where I think this government has been unusually creative and I encourage it to carry that same innovative thrust through to other matters of the trade talks. Periodically, governments do things that reflect what I will call global realities. If I may give one specific example, in the securities industry, an industry I know a little bit about, we have in effect something nearly approaching a free trade market right now. That is the global reality of the securities business and indeed of the whole question of the financial industry.

Money moves with ease from country to country. Investors move with ease from country to country. Securities are increasingly being listed on all the world stock exchanges, whatever their country of origin. In our own country, some of our principal and major industrial companies such as Bell Canada and a number of our banks are listed and will be trading today on the Tokyo stock exchange. It is an example of a trend that in my judgement will accelerate.

About three months ago this government, through the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter), took what I think was a very courageous, creative and gutsy move in fundamentally changing the ownership provisions of the securities industry in this jurisdiction. Its impact will be felt throughout the country. What it boils down to is that the minister, with the encouragement and support of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), ruled that, as of June this year, foreigners may own up to 50 per cent of a Canadian securities dealer and that by June 1988, just a year down the road, foreigners will be able to own, control and operate 100 per cent of a Canadian-based securities dealer.

It is a creative move. By the way, it is a move that is still causing some debate in the industry, but in my judgement, it is a move that reflects the global realities of that industry and recognizes at the same time that if we are going to be able to survive as a securities and financial community, we have to be able to compete on the world level. It goes without saying that there is sufficient confidence that Canadians can compete internationally. Scores of businesses are doing it today, and I think the government simply needs to have the confidence to be able to move ahead.

Before turning this over to my colleagues, I encourage the government to be a little more candid, up front and courageous and to show the same kind of leadership in other areas of this trading question that has been shown in the securities area. It should have the confidence in Canadian entrepreneurs and business leaders that we all have. The reality is that if we do not face these global realities, we are going to be in trouble. We have no alternative but to face the international competition that Canadians can match.

Mr. Mackenzie: I rise with interest to take

part in this debate on the resolution that has been moved by my friend and colleague the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey). I find a little bit of an air of unreality to the resolution he has moved in this House. The motion says, "That in the opinion of this House the federal government's initiatives to negotiate a bilateral trading arrangement with the United States should be supported." That is fairly clear. It is probably the key to what we are debating here, except for one other item and that is the last section, "clearly putting forward Ontario's position with respect to this issue of importance to all Canadians."

Those are the key words as far as I am concerned in resolution 9 that has been presented to the House today. The problem we have is that if we buy endorsing the federal initiative, we are talking about -- because they have never backed off it -- a comprehensive, bilateral trading agreement between Canada and the United States, a trading agreement that starts from a level playing field, that establishes so-called equality between the two parties and that supposedly will be a win-win situation for both sides in the talks.

That is just not likely. We are not only dealing with the numbers -- a country of almost 26 million people against a country of 240 million to 250 million people -- we are also dealing with an industrial base on the other side of the river that can swamp almost any one of our industries at any time it wants. We are dealing with farm legislation right now that we simply cannot, in most cases, compete with. We are dealing with a US commitment to protect its countervail legislation, which means that an action can be brought at any time if somebody is being unfairly hurt in the United States.

The effort to get around that opening sentence is in the remarks that follow -- this is why I say it is almost a trip into fairyland -- which say, "while protecting our political sovereignty, social programs, agricultural marketing systems, the auto industry and our unique cultural identity." I do not know how much more evidence we need than what we have had from Mr. Yeutter and Mr. Murphy in terms of these very items having to be on the table. There is no way we are not going to negotiate some of these items.

I will take a piece out of the Toronto Star, if I can, that has been reiterated a number of times since. These are comments that Mr. Yeutter was making. I am quoting from the Toronto Star of December 19:

"I would be concerned if the term `culture' is defined in such a way that it could have a major dampening effect on the overall negotiating process. I would certainly hope and expect that Prime Minister Mulroney and Minister Kelleher and others will take a reasonable, rational view of that issue. While it is seen as premature to exempt cultural industries before talks get under way, Ottawa could always do so during the formal negotiations."

Significantly, Mr. Yeutter suggested in the same speech that Canada would have to make tradeoffs with the US if it wanted to protect these sensitive cultural industries. Is the member saying that we will deal as long as these things are exempt and not accepting the fact that, by putting these items on the table, we are going to have to make tradeoffs? That does not make any sense to me. He goes on further to say, "The argument over cultural industries can be thrashed out only at the bargaining table."

I will leave that one for a moment and talk about the auto pact, which is essential to the jobs of literally hundreds of thousands of people in Ontario. These are Mr. Yeutter's comments, not mine. This was reinforced by Mr. Murphy and by a number of other Americans on a number of occasions since. "Asked at his news conference about the auto pact, which has regulated trade in cars and parts between the two countries since the 1960s and now yields a surplus for Canada, Yeutter argued that it must be included in free trade talks." Mr. Murphy has said exactly the same thing.

I want to know from my colleague in the House if that is now all right. We can go into any one of the other areas that really concern us, some of the farm products, a number of the other industries, but is it all right now that we negotiate with those on the table and make our tradeoffs accordingly? Or is he saying in his resolution that those things have to be exempted and from there we are going to sit down and talk? I submit they are two entirely different things. It starts us out not in a win-win position but in an absolutely no-win-no-win position in this country of ours.

I know the concerns of working people. I know some of the concerns of business. There were almost as many business people, probably more, before our committee when we were holding the hearings. I will not go into the details of the trucking industry or a number of others. They outlined in graphic detail the concerns they had.

I also want to go back to this last statement he made, "clearly putting forward Ontario's position with respect to this issue of importance to all Canadians." On that item, I can agree with him. I would like to know what Ontario's position is. I would like to know what this Liberal government's position is in terms of free trade.

I know what the position of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is. He is on record fairly clearly as favouring the whole idea. I know the position taken on some of the arguments, all the while qualifying that the government also did not want to deal with these certain items that would really hurt us. The position that was taken by Liberal members in that committee on the free trade initiative was that they were in favour of it, provided we could somehow qualify it; but never answered was that qualification that we do not deal with those items or that we do put them on the table and make sure we negotiate protection on those particular items. In the course of doing so, what are the tradeoffs?

There are obviously tradeoffs any time one puts major items like the auto pact, like culture, like a number of other industries on the bargaining table. There are obviously tradeoffs. The thing that has bothered me in this whole argument is exactly where Ontario and the Liberal government stand as we start getting down to the short strokes in the trade negotiations that we are in in Washington now. Quite frankly, I do not know where they stand. I do not know how much grit and determination is going to be there in terms of protecting some of these things.

The minute we enter in and endorse the trade talks that we are now being asked to reinforce with this resolution, except with all the qualifications, somebody has to tell us clearly what those qualifications mean and whether or not they mean those are not on the table, period; or do they mean that they are on the table but we will do the trading off that is necessary to protect ourselves in those particular areas? If that is the argument that is being made here, then we are in a no-win position before we even start in these comprehensive trade negotiations.

When my colleague also says, "We have a history of protecting our industrial base in this country" -- and there are certain industries that we cannot let go down the tube -- I go back to the same question: Do we put them on the table and let something else go back down the tube in the course of the negotiations? It does not make any sense. This particular resolution that is before us has an air of real unreality.

Certainly, I and my colleagues cannot support it, much as we would like to know what Ontario's position is and much as we think we probably should be having more of a voice in this because Ontario has more to lose. We certainly do not endorse the type of initiative that was presented to us that said we wore not going to lose these particular items in our country. But every single day that goes by, when we listen to the trade negotiators, the US ambassador, their senior people, when we talked to the senators in the United States, it was made very clear that all the things we are talking about exempting were on the table.

I say to the members of this House that it does not make any sense at all. Our position should be much more forthright and clear as to what we want, and it certainly is not to see the continua lion of this particular federal initiative of Mr. Mulroney which, incidentally, he entered into without any predebate in this country, entered into from a position of saying he opposed it when he was running for the leadership and really tried to pull a fast one without a clear consensus among the Canadian people as to what they were trying to do. My party will be opposing this resolution.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I rise with a little sorrow. I recall meeting the member for Armourdale in 1985 when I first was elected to this assembly and I recall receiving some excellent advice from him as to how to conduct oneself as a member of the provincial parliament. I looked forward to a fuller relationship at that time. I have hardly seen him since, I do not see him now, but I was hoping that we could welcome him back to the Legislature.

I am sorry about that, not only for personal reasons but also because we now learn, somewhat belatedly, about his interest in the free trade negotiations. We learn that he has apparently missed the most thorough and comprehensive review of the possibilities, and the downside, of free trade with the United States that has been conducted in any Legislature on either side of the border. That was conducted, of course, by this Legislature in 1985-86, and he has chosen not to partake in that --

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It is not normally that I would rise to come to the defence of a member --

The Deputy Speaker: What is the privilege? It is the member's time.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Armourdale's privileges are being abused because there was an implication that he left. He really did have to leave.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Laughren: He told me that he had to leave.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: That is a shameful interjection if there ever was one.

In any event, had he followed our deliberations closely, he would not have penned this resolution. That is basically what I was attempting to get at. These negotiations, we must remember, were not the initial idea of the government of Ontario. We were not initially consulted with regard to them. In so far as criticism is concerned as to whether the budget should have included adjustment costs, I remind the members that it was the idea of the federal government, and presumably the federal government will be responsible financially for adjustment costs.

Even though Ontario-United States trade stands at $95 billion or US$69 billion -- a hefty chunk of the Canadian-US two-way trade -- Ontario alone accounts for 19 per cent of the exports of the United States. That is compared to 11 per cent of their exports going to Japan. We have a great deal at stake. We have an interest to protect. I am darned proud of what our government has been doing, the work and the care it has taken over the course of the last two years to protect those interests, especially when the federal government at times seemed not prepared or ready to provide that sort of protection.

This is a poker game that we are involved in, in actual fact. The Americans are proving in many respects to be much better at poker than are Mulroney, Carney and Reisman.

Interjections.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: We should stick to hockey, as the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro) indicates.

The pressure was phenomenal. The Americans initially said that they wanted to engage in these negotiations with Canada, and then they told us that their law said we had to write them a letter first before they could start the negotiations. "Please, write us a letter. Pretty please, write us a letter."

Eventually, the Prime Minister, having been trained the way he was since childhood, wrote them a letter. The moment he wrote them the letter, the Americans said: "Well, this was your idea. What are you going to give us?" They were not necessarily prepared to give anything to us, because that might be un-American. They asked, "What are we going to give to you? Well, we would like to do something for you, if we could, but you know how protectionist our Congress is. You know how protectionist they are. They are not in a good mood. You have got to treat them nicely. You better give us something more.

We would like to accommodate you. Why do you not give us rights to intellectual property? Why do you not give us a new Patent Act? Why do you not let us into your investment a little more? Do not tamper with the Dome-Amoco deal. You might upset that protectionist Congress."

This concept in resolving crime is known as the good-guy, bad-guy syndrome. That is basically what they are playing, and perhaps Canada should be playing it too. This is the role being played by this government. It is a vital role. We have a de facto veto. The Americans know it. The Premier has said categorically that he will not support a deal unless he sees it as being in the best interests of Canada. It is a simple as that, and thank goodness the Americans know it.

Whether he knows it or not, the best weapon Mr. Reisman has is the government of Ontario. Let us hope he is using that weapon to advantage. The second-best weapon may be the Toronto Star, but the best weapon he has is the government of Ontario, and the Americans know it. The result may be a modest understanding.

Unlike the socialists, we believe we have to talk to the Americans and hopefully get rid of some irritants and hopefully obtain a dispute resolution mechanism. Certainly, we will have to give up something if we wish to obtain exemption from countervail and exemption from the House trade bill which is presently before the United States Congress.

Certainly, things have to be protected. The government has said so. The American negotiators are busy reading their Pierre Berton books to try to figure out what our culture means. Agriculture is a fight that has to be conducted against the United States and the European Community cartel by the wheat-producing nations on a global basis. That is really not a subject that should be considered seriously, except for some irritants in the trade negotiations.

The auto pact must not just be left alone but must be preserved, for the sake of the 1,200 companies and the 50,000 employees who are directly dependent on the automotive production industry. Autos are the largest manufacturing sector in Canada. They consume one sixth of our iron and steel, rubber and batteries; 14 per cent of our processed aluminum; 13 per cent of our copper, and eight per cent of our glass and paint production. The pact not only must be preserved but also must be strengthened so it will not wither away.

What is it the Americans want, then? They want more. Thank goodness, unlike the suggestion in this resolution, Mr. Reisman has a weapon. He has a tough government in Ontario with which to fight back. He does not have the wishy-washy comments that have occurred from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), whose own caucus members are often embarrassed by the comments he makes on this issue.

An hon. member: Read some of them.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: All right, I will. In January 1985, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick says, "Free trade with the United States is not a realistic option." In October 1955 he criticizes the Premier --

An hon. member: Nineteen eighty-five.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: It was 1985. Who knows what he was saying in 1955? In 1985, he was saying, "Mr. Peterson is going along too fully with the broadly based approach of the Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney." That was October 21, 1985.

Mr. Ferraro: Who said that?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The Leader of the Opposition, although he was not the Leader of the Opposition then.

By September 1986, he gives his full support to the free trade initiative for the first time. Then he changes his mind again in November 1986 and suggests again that perhaps we are going a little too far too fast.

Mr. Ferraro: Who said that?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The Leader of the Opposition said that. I do not know what the member for Eglinton thought. He must have been ashamed when he saw this sort of thing.

Finally, the latest: On April 11, 1987, he said, "We should get off the fence and embrace freer trade with the United States even though it would give away the greatest weapon Mr. Reisman has."

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grande: Are you supporting that or not?

Mr. Turner: Are you for it or against it?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I'm agin it.

Mr. McFadden: In considering this resolution this morning, I think it is important to put trade into some perspective. The fact is, there is no country in the world that depends more on international trade than Canada. In fact, Ontario as a province exports more per person than any industrialized country.

According to figures released by the provincial Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, one job in three in Ontario depends on export sales. When one considers that the United States takes in 80 per cent of Canada's exports and 90 per cent of Ontario's exports, it is obvious why the federal government launched trade talks with the United States and why a new trade arrangement between Canada and the United States is critical to the future of our country.

Since 1945, the world has enjoyed the longest and greatest period of widespread economic growth in the history of mankind. During the last four decades, the world's annual output of goods and services has tripled. One of the most important engines for this kind of economic growth was international trade liberalization, which opened up the world and literally provided millions of jobs for people in countries throughout the globe.

Today in Canada, two million jobs depend directly on trade, and of those, one million are right here in Ontario. Yet there are major storm clouds building. Protectionist winds are blowing as never before in recent years in the United States, in Europe and in other parts of the world. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, under whose auspices the tremendous growth in trade has taken place since the Second World War, is in serious trouble and is under attack from all sides.

It is easy to forget what happened the last time protectionism ruled the world economic order, back in the 1930s. One of the major reasons for the Depression of the 1930s was the collapse of the international trading system. This was brought on by the passage in 1930 of the Smoot-Hawley Act in the United States, which raised American tariffs to protectionist and prohibitive levels.

As a result of the American trade legislation passed in 1930, Canadian exports to the United States fell, by 1933, to one third of their 1929 level. The fact is that if we had that kind of drop in our trade to the United States today, Ontario alone would lose 500,000 jobs. What is frightening is that the United States Congress is now in the process of enacting omnibus trade legislation which is more protectionist than any legislation passed by the American Congress since the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930.

The trading relationship between Canada and the United States is now the largest trading relationship between any two nations in the entire world. It represents a total trade in goods and services of over $170 billion. As Thomas d'Aquino, the president of the Business Council on National Issues, said in a recent address to McGill University:

"The Canada-US trading relationship is much too big and much too important to be left to chance. The time has come to encompass it within the rules and discipline of a bilateral agreement. Without such rules and discipline, the law of the jungle will apply, and in the jungle, the strong usually have their way."

What might be included in any agreement? We would suggest there should be a further phasing out of most tariffs on goods shipped between Canada and the United States, a reduction in discriminatory procurement policies by government on both sides of the border and the establishment of an effective bilateral trade commission, which would be mandated to solve trade disputes between our two countries.

When talking about tariffs, it is important to note that some 80 per cent of Canadian goods now go into the United States duty-free, while over 70 per cent of American goods come into Canada without any duties.

A broad cross-section of business, trade and professional groups, consumer organizations and economists throughout Canada support the federal government, because they know a freer trade agreement will help the consumers, maintain and open up trade opportunities for our country in the United States and create new jobs for thousands of Canadians. But it will do more. A trade agreement will also preserve thousands of jobs now at risk as a consequence of protectionist US trade legislation.

The business community recognizes that the old status quo is over. Some members of this House may not acknowledge that, but the old status quo is over, and it will be definitively finished when the omnibus trade act passes through Congress this year and is signed into law by the US President. The reality is that we, as a country, must reach a trade accord with the United States or gradually sink into a trade war with the Americans, which over time will cost millions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

A trade agreement not only will assist in maintaining an opening-up of vital markets in the US but will also ensure that Canada remains an attractive place to invest in new and expanded plants for both Canadian and foreign investors. If our markets to the US are jeopardized through a trade war with the Americans, we can be assured that new investment in industry will dry up. With reduced access to the American market, manufacturing plants and other businesses will be closed or cut back in Canada and in Ontario and new plants and businesses will not be opened. This will cost thousands of jobs in this province in the years to come.

We are not advocating the signing of a trade agreement at any cost, as this resolution indicates. Our resolution states that no agreement should be finalized which would endanger our political sovereignty, social programs, agricultural marketing systems, the auto industry or our unique cultural identity, and the Americans understand that to be the case.

The fact is that we are all devoted to Canada, on all sides of this House, and we want to see this country maintained as a strong and independent nation. Is anyone seriously suggesting that high tariffs will in some way make Canada more independent? Nonsense. The fact is that there is no example in this century where the opening of trade links between countries, the liberalization of trade, has led to political integration.

While the negotiation of a trade accord with the US must be one of our priorities, we recognize that we should also support the federal government's initiatives to strengthen the eroding world trading system through the new round of GATT talks. We should get behind that initiative. It is vital to Ontario, as it is vital to Canada.

We should also work to develop, in a concerted fashion, new international markets, particularly in the Pacific Rim, to reduce our overwhelming dependence on the American marketplace. But we should remember that development of new export markets will take time, it will take persistence and it will take considerable energy. This kind of initiative represents a long-term strategy but no realistic alternative to maintaining our vital markets in the United States.

Where does the Ontario government stand on this? Does the Ontario government favour negotiating a freer trade agreement with the US or does it not? When you read what the Premier has said over the past two years, the answer is a rather fuzzy "maybe." On such an important issue, which is so critical to the jobs of thousands of Ontarians and the economic future of this country, we require a determined leadership.

Since studies in Canada and the US indicate that Ontario will be the biggest winner if a trade accord is reached with the US and would be in fact the biggest loser if a trade war broke out with the US, it is essential that Ontario support the federal initiative in an open and helpful fashion so that we can get on and establish a new relationship with our important American partners.

Mr. Morin-Strom: First, I would like to comment that the Liberal chairman of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs has again illustrated the duplicity of the Liberals on this issue. After a long harangue against the federal government, he again has confirmed that, yes, his party does support what the federal government is doing in pursuing a free trade agreement with the United States.

I must take exception with the extremist views expressed on my right by the Conservatives, that the choice here is between a free trade war --

Mr. D. R. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) is misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that.

The Deputy Speaker: I listened very carefully to the member, and he was referring to "the Liberals." I do not think he referred to the member for Kitchener in any way.

Mr. Ferraro: He said "the chairman," and the member for Kitchener is the chairman.

Mr. Offer: Rule him out.

The Deputy Speaker: Did the member for Sault Ste. Marie refer to the chairman, the member for Kitchener, specifically?

Mr. Morin-Strom: I referred to the comment he made at the end of his long harangue, in which he said, yes, he is supporting this resolution.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I did not say I am supporting --

Mr. Ferraro: He said he was not supporting it.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The Speaker may check the record, but he did say, yes, he supports the resolution.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We will check the record and take it up. We are now running into the time of the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: In point of fact, I am opposing the resolution and I made that very clear in my speech.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. We will check.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: It does not need to be twisted and turned by the member for Sault Ste. Marie. An apology is in order.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Now he is going to change the record. I guess I have half my time remaining. Thank you again.

I have had the opportunity to participate in many weeks of hearings before Ontario's standing committee on finance and economic affairs. We visited Washington, DC, three times to discuss this issue with congressmen, senators and administration officials. As a result, I am strongly opposing this resolution, which endorses the Mulroney attempt to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States.

Many important questions remain unanswered. Which regions, industries and people would be the winners and which would be the losers in a free trade deal? Numerous companies and industries and workers have indicated that they would be devastated, but not even the free trade advocates have been able to identify the winners.

Would we have to sacrifice unemployment insurance, environmental protection and worker health and safety, along with our cultural sovereignty, in order to conform with US practices? Such areas may well be extremely vulnerable under a free trade agreement. Will jobs that are currently guaranteed under the auto pact be lost? Will the family farm disappear in Ontario? These are serious questions which must be addressed and have not been to this point in this debate.

No doubt discussions are necessary to resolve contentious, nontariff issues. They are going on and they will continue. It is the focus of these discussions that is in question. The free trade advocates claim a comprehensive free trade pact would solve the risk from US protectionism. Instead of a comprehensive free trade initiative, we need better management of the trading relationship by the imposition of an impartial dispute settlement mechanism. This could be accomplished by setting up an international joint commission aimed at mediating and arbitrating trade disputes as they arrive.

In dealing with the US, I would far prefer to be operating from a position of strength rather than one of weakness. To date, the Canadian government has shown nothing but weakness, having given into Reagan completely on issues such as the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the national energy program, cruise missile testing, shakes and shingles, low-cost generic drugs, the lumber duty and acid rain. What have we received in return? Nothing.

We now see Amoco taking over Dome Petroleum, and the government is looking at giving up all controls on foreign investment in Canada. Canada is literally up for sale.

One of the most serious problems facing Canada in this dispute is the American definition of free trade. It bears no resemblance to what the words might mean to the average citizen. Continually, we hear their reference to "a level playing field." The American terms are not tariffs but rather are economic and social policies. Any economic, social or political policy that would give a cost advantage to a Canadian firm over an American one is viewed by the Americans as a subsidy that must be eliminated under their definition of free trade.

There will be pressure on the Canadian government to match the US in such fields as taxation policies, labour laws, environmental regulations and private ownership of our forests. It could mean the end of Canadian social programs, agricultural marketing boards, government purchase preference for Canadian-made goods and regional development grants.

In support, the United States, in collaboration with Mulroney and much of the Canadian business community, would like to see severe restrictions on Canadian autonomy in economic and social policy. In this light, it is clear that free trade poses a severe threat to Canadian sovereignty.

Business people have claimed that the biggest benefit of a free trade deal might be to give Canada some exemptions from very restrictive trade legislation now going through the US Congress. From my personal experience in accompanying the committee to Washington last month, the people who believe that are living in a dreamland. This trip was a very valuable one. It taught us, as Ontario legislators, a number of truths. The US Congress remains in a very protectionist mood, with the Democrats now flexing their muscles.

Their only interest in free trade, however, is as part of a method to expand their domestic market. Any interest the US has in free trade is simply to make Canada part of Fortress North America, and that is not going to work.

One of the most famous stories that came out of that trip was our meeting with Senator Spark Matsunaga of Hawaii. Ten Ontario legislators crowded into his office. In his view, he had become a Canadian hero by casting the deciding Senate committee vote approving the fast-track negotiations, but his views were expressed by phrases such as these: "The sooner your country blends with ours, the better.

I am a free trader except when it comes to Hawaiian sugar," and "Free means an integrated economy." Although his views were graciously expressed there was no doubt left that Senator Matsunaga had no understanding of Canada's fight for independence for over 120 years, nor did he think Canadians should resist the welcoming bearhug of American culture.

On behalf of all concerned Canadians, I want to say that Americans cannot have the fair advantage which had been requested by one of the congressmen with whom we met. Canadians do not wish to become a cultural, economic or political dependency of the US. Today, this Legislature should stand up for Canadian sovereignty by strongly opposing this resolution.

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: My colleague certainly is not required to give any apology to the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), but I may.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. Apologies are not points of order.

Mr. Mackenzie: Could you correct the record, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: You can correct only your own statements; you cannot correct someone else's statement.

Mr. Mackenzie: In heckling the member, I took his response to be yes, he was supporting the resolution, and I passed that information on.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Armourdale reserved 15 minutes for his wrapup, but I do not see him in his chair. The order therefore reverts to the normal rotation, which means that the member for Sault Ste. Marie has another three minutes if he wishes to use it.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I had come to a conclusion and I would hope that the Legislature will strongly oppose this resolution. I look forward to the Liberals, in particular, standing up and saying what they really believe on this issue.

Mr. Ferraro: It gives me great pleasure to rise and say a few things about the motion. I should say quite unequivocally at the start that I will be voting against the motion. While the member's motion was qualified enough to make it to some degree a motherhood motion, essentially I am voting against it for the last two sentences where it says, "including clearly putting forward Ontario's position with respect to this issue of importance to all Canadians."

I also take issue with members of the socialist party who say that Ontario's position is not very well known. I dispute that, and I say quite candidly that the approach we can take is one or the other. We can take the approach that we trust Mr. Mulroney that we are going to have unequivocal free trade, but we do not know what the agreement is -- and I say quite candidly that I am sure the agreement has changed considerably since they first started it, for obvious reasons.

The other approach we can take, which is one that the New Democratic Party takes and that I do not support, is that we should not talk to them, that indeed we should do it on a sectoral basis and that we should not get into any free trade negotiations whatsoever.

I think the approach taken by the Premier is the right one. It is cautiously supportive, cautiously concerned and against selling out our country. Until we see the agreement we do not know what it is. We do not know whether we can support it, and we reserve that judgement. As my colleague the member for Kitchener says, "We are perhaps the best weapon Reisman has."

It never ceases to amaze me that we are talking about an agreement for free trade negotiation, and I want to reiterate this point, when we do not even have free trade in our own country. You cannot sell beer in one province unless you have a plant there. I refer members to an editorial recently in the Toronto Star, that bastion of conservatism. It says: "The 10 provinces are equally busy erecting and defending protective walls between themselves. For example, a trucker can't haul a load of furniture across the Ontario-Manitoba border without checking first to see if he has breached the different weight rules on either side." I mentioned the beer.

"Numerous well-publicized cases show the folly of such interprovincial rivalry. The Ontario Sheet Metal Workers Union used an obscure province-wide contract clause to force a Quebec ventilation duct company to drop a contract it had won in Ottawa. And later, across the Ottawa River, the town of Aylmer, Quebec, ordered a new brick sidewalk torn up because it had been built of Ontario bricks." It goes on and on. It is ludicrous that we are talking about an unqualified -- depending on who you are listening to -- free trade agreement and we do not even have it in our own country.

I want to make mention of the Conservative Party. I have some empathy for my friends, particularly on the finance and economic affairs committee. Their leader has jumped back and forth on this issue three or four times. It reminds me of a story. If I can draw an analogy to my friends in the Conservative Party, it is like being an outfielder playing for the Texas Rangers. There was a pitcher on the Texas Rangers who was to some degree similar to the Leader of the Opposition and he was having a pretty tough night. They were hitting about every second pitch he was throwing.

Finally the manager came out to the pitcher and said, "Well, son, I am going to have to take you out of the game." Like Mr. Grossman, who does not know which position to take or when he is beat, he said, "Coach, I am not tired." The manager said, "Well, son, I know that, but your fielders sure are." I say with great respect to my colleagues in the Conservative Party that they must be getting tired of switching their position as the Leader of the Opposition continues to switch his.

l have had the pleasure of sitting on the finance and economic affairs committee with my colleagues from the Conservative and New Democratic parties. We have gone to Washington, in my case twice; they have gone three times. Quite frankly, the last time was probably the most beneficial and rewarding trip in my view. We had many candid and long conversations with many powerful senators and congressmen, and I believe we did a tremendous job in the interests of Ontario.

The one undeniable fact I concluded from this trip, which we suspected when we made our recommendations in our first two reports, was that Ontario does a lousy job in communicating, or if you will, presenting Ontario's interests to American legislators.

There are countries, entities, states that spend millions of dollars lobbying the United States. Whether we like lobbying or not, it is a reality. When you are exporting 90 per cent of your exports to the United States, as Ontario does, I think it is imperative that Ontario have a more substantial presence in Washington. Our sales force, if I can refer to it in that regard, at the moment is in the body of Mr. Gotlieb, our ambassador. While everyone we talk to -- it is my own conclusion and I am sure the other members of the committee will so conclude -- says he is a terrific man who earns his pay and does a tremendous job, it is just not enough.

I can recall my friend the member for Eglinton presenting that questionable ally of Canada and Ontario, Senator Heinz, with statistics that in the trading relationship between his state, Pennsylvania, and Ontario, he has a $600-million credit. Here is a man standing up in the legislature for no other reason and with no substantiation of facts in my view, bearing in mind the trade surplus his state has over Ontario, than that he is politicking, as many in this House do, because he is up for re-election. In my view, the hard fact of the matter is that Ontario has to have a better presence in Washington.

One of the recommendations we had was that we should have an Ontario House there. We have an Ontario House in Britain. We have an Ontario House in Paris. We have an Ontario House in Tokyo. We are in the process of getting an Ontario House or a presence in India. We have a presence in China. But the country on which we spend the least amount of money and with which we spend the least amount of time is the country where we are 90 per cent oriented in our exports. We have a federal representative representing us. There is something categorically wrong there and I believe all members of the committee believe we have to increase that presence substantially.

Mr. Wildman: Don't worry; Bruce is in Washington.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I have recognized the member for Wellington South to speak, no one else.

Mr. Ferraro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot say it enough: one cannot put all one's eggs in one basket. There are other provinces that have representation there. I think it is a very serious mistake if we do not rectify that situation very quickly.

I want to conclude by saying again that I will be voting against this motion on the basis that I believe the Premier of this province and our caucus have stated our position quite clearly. It is, and I wholeheartedly agree, that we are not going to embrace anything until we see what it is we are talking about.

Let us talk; let us see if we can approve things. There is not a politician in the House who is going to stand up and say, "Well, we want to get rid of the auto pact." There is not one, not only from a logical point of view but from a political point of view. In fairness, as most members in the House know, the auto pact can be cancelled by either side with one year's written notice.

So if nothing else, and I say this quite candidly, if they can come up with an agreement on freer trade that makes things better, that substantially gives more security to the auto pact -- and I think everybody would have to agree that it is in our best interests -- then I think, as the Premier said, when we see what we have to vote on we will then determine the best interests of Ontario and, indeed, the best interests of Canada.

I reiterate that Conservatives and Liberals were unanimous in the report of the economic affairs committee which said basically the same thing; but when we receive the pudding, we will find out whether we want to taste the pudding.

Mr. Stevenson: I want to concentrate primarily on some of the agricultural aspects of expanded trade but, because there is very limited time, I am going to go over these very quickly. It is quite clear that, when the Liberals invited Donald Macdonald in this past week to explain to them what the issue of expanded trade and fair trade is all about so they could understand for the first time what the issue really is, it is clear that he did not really explain it to them all that well.

Very clearly, I think the governments of Ontario have been after expanded trade with the United States for some time. Indeed, we put offices into the US and we had intended to put eight agricultural trade officers in those trade offices. The current government unfortunately cut that back to six.

l think we can look at the current discussions with the United States as really nothing different from a business person talking to his or her best customer. When that best customer starts grumbling about certain aspects of their business relationship, most certainly one is going to talk to one's best customer. I do not think many fair-minded people can argue with that.

It is our hope that, as a result of these discussions, we will see some sort of new committee or new tribunal established that will solve many of the trade irritants between our two countries before we go to countervail. A tremendous amount of time, cost, and of course all the politics involved have just been major problems in all sorts of trade with the US. But just recently in the agricultural field we have seen something more than $100,000 spent by the corn producers' association. We are now seeing precountervail action in beef. We have been through countervail action and appeals in pork. We are seeing it in cut flowers; and on and on it goes.

Anything to establish a new body to try to get rid of some of these problems will be a major step forward, and then individual issues can be negotiated as these irritants come forward. Certainly, we see that we can have some gains particularly in the beef, pork and corn areas and in some vegetables, and we will have assured access to those markets, but as the motion states we very clearly want to make sure that our marketing agencies in this province, in this country, are protected. We believe, quite frankly, that they can be.

It is broader than just marketing boards, as our friends on the left here are chirping. It has been very clear. The marketing boards have lobbied and our trade experts have lobbied MPs and MPPs extremely well and the people in the milk, eggs, chicken and turkey commodities have made their positions very clear. As the party that brought most of that marketing legislation into Ontario, we very clearly stand in favour of that legislation. We have protected it in the past and we will continue to protect it in the future.

Briefly, I want to mention the grape and wine industry. The member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) and the member for Brock (Mr. Partington) have brought the grape and wine situation to the attention of our caucus on numerous occasions and expressed their great concern, and the concern of the grape and wine industry, about what would happen if there was some sort of across-the-board opening up of the markets here to grape concentrates and to American wine. At the moment, of course, we have uneven tariffs that favour the US grape industry and that is a major concern to our local growers.

We also, of course, have the local Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which has discretion in listings and has differential markups. Any move to seriously alter that will have a major impact.

I wish I had a few more minutes to go over the song and dance that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) has given on the trade issue but I will have time on some other occasion and I will put it forward at that time. I ask all members to support this excellent motion put forward by one of our caucus.

CLEAN WATER ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Marland has moved second reading of Bill 41,

An Act to encourage the Rehabilitation of Water Delivery Systems in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

The House divided on Mr. McCaffrey's motion of resolution 9, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bernier, Cousens, Dean, Gregory, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Lane, Marland, McCague, McFadden, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, O'Connor, Partington, Pierce, Pope, Rowe, Runciman, Sheppard, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, Turner.

Nays

Allen, Bossy, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Ferraro, Foulds, Fulton, Gigantes, Grande, Grier, Hart, Hennessy, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, Miller, G. I., Morin, Morin-Strom, Newman, Offer, Polsinelli, Pouliot, Ramsay, Sargent, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Swart, Wildman.

Ayes 27; nays 33.

The House recessed at 12:13 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1988, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. It is signed by His Honour Lincoln Alexander.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHÔMAGE DANS LE NORD DE L'ONTARIO

Mr. Pope: Alors que le taux de la croissance économique est très élevé dans la communauté urbaine de Toronto, l'activité économique stagne et les emplois ont disparu dans le nord de l'Ontario. Chacun doit recevoir sa juste part des fruits de la prospérité économique.

Le gouvernement de l'Ontario n'a pas réparti les bienfaits de la relance économique dont profitent certaines régions de la province. Le taux de chômage est de 4.3 pour cent à Toronto. À Sault-Ste-Marie il est de 14.9 pour cent. Dans le nord de l'Ontario, le taux de chômage est de 12 pour cent en moyenne. Il est évident que le gouvernement libéral tolère une grande injustice dont les gens du nord subissent les conséquences.

This government has failed over the period of one year, when we have had massive layoffs and unemployment in northern Ontario, 10 per cent more than in the community of Toronto, 10 per cent more unemployment in Sault Ste. Marie than in Toronto. This government has failed.

It has failed to follow through on the promise made on January 8 by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to put funds in the retraining of laid-off forest products workers. It has failed to have any kind of retraining program or employment program for miners. It has failed to help the workers of northern Ontario, their families and their communities. They deserve to be condemned.

TVONTARIO

Mr. Warner: TVOntario is an organization which all of us here and throughout the province should be very proud of, because it is an organization which should be able to create excellent educational programs, children's shows and the type of material that can be used in our school system.

Unfortunately, as members are aware, over the past six years there has been a decline in the budget of TVO so that its programming cannot expand. This decline has been accelerated by the present government. In fact, the present government is now responsible for 50 staff positions having been eliminated at TVOntario.

The number of hours of programming by TVO will be reduced by approximately 10 per cent. The number of programs purchased from other sources will drop by approximately 15 per cent, and to quote the producer of children's programming, "We can survive with what we are doing now, but we have no one to develop next year's programming."

It is very sad to learn that the present government does not support the good efforts of TVOntario, and I hope it will reverse its unfortunate decision.

JET POWER CREDIT UNION

Mr. Callahan: I would like to report that I had the delight of attending the 35th annual meeting of the Jet Power Credit Union in my riding. Jet Power Credit Union was formed by a number of very young women and young men who had the foresight to recognize that when traditional opportunities for borrowing were not available to them, they could be made available through this credit union.

The credit union was established at the A. V. Roe company in 1950, and it was with a great deal of foresight that they did this, because they had assets of $2.5 million at the time. In 1955, when the then Conservative federal government cancelled the Avro Arrow on the day known as Black Friday, their assets were reduced considerably.

Since that time, however, they have prospered in a tremendous way, and I would like to congratulate the members, the board of directors in the past, the present and those who will serve in the future, for establishing such a major event for the people of my riding.

ACCESS TO LAKES

Mr. Laughren: I wish to comment on an issue that is becoming increasingly important across northern Ontario, namely, the closing of access roads into lakes for local residents to go in and fish.

For a number of years now, there have been tourist operators on many of these lakes. They were given land use permits on the assumption that they would have remote access, they would be remote access lakes. In the meantime, however, the Ministry of Natural Resources, as only the MNR can do, allowed the forestry industries to cut right down almost to the shoreline, in some cases directly to the shoreline, and of course they had to build roads to get to the shoreline to cut the wood.

Now we have the fishermen going in and fishing and the local tourist operator who has a major investment in there, perhaps $500,000 or more, suddenly no longer has a remote tourist lodge. Someone who has paid a great deal of money to fly in gets up in the morning and finds a bunch of boats out on the lake and people fishing and it is no longer a remote access lake.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has attempted to close off those roads, and in so doing it has alienated not only all the local fishermen but, up to this point, the local tourist operators as well. The Ministry of Natural Resources has made a complete shambles out of a policy. There is no need for anybody to have been alienated. There are lots of lakes and lots of fish in northern Ontario, and they have simply screwed it up.

PAUL RIMSTEAD

Mr. McLean: Ontario has lost a great ambassador with the passing of Paul Rimstead of the Toronto Sun. For many of us, the Rimmer was, in an abstract way, a modern-day Stephen Leacock.

Bass Lake was his Mariposa in the riding of Simcoe East. I know many of the constituents in my riding join me in an expression of sorrow at the passing of a one-man institution, Paul Rimstead.

He pointed out not only our foibles but also his own. He was a member of the world community, but we were rich through his presence in our community of Simcoe East. We shall miss Paul Rimstead and extend our condolences to his family. He was often imitated but never equalled.

PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr. Wildman: In this House, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has admitted that a park, specifically Holiday Beach park, has been removed from the provincial park system against the guidelines of the Ministry of the Environment and against the regulations of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The minister has admitted that in the House and it remains to be seen what the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is going to do about it. Surely it is the Minister of the Environment's responsibility to ensure that the regulations under the Environmental Assessment Act are adhered to by his colleagues in the government.

It appears that in order to meet a political obligation to the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), the Minister of Natural Resources has ignored the Environmental Assessment Act as it applies to the removal of a park from the provincial parks system. It remains the responsibility then of the Minister of the Environment to ensure that this is not allowed and that this government upholds the Environmental Assessment Act. We await action from the Minister of the Environment.

OLGA TYNE

Mrs. Marland: I rise today as the critic for senior citizens with a very pleasant task, and that is to recognize the service and dedication of an employee of the city of Mississauga, Mrs. Olga Tyne.

Mrs. Tyne has been a full-time employee of the city of Mississauga recreation and parks department for the last 20 years. Indeed, today there will be a party celebrating her retirement. On the one hand because it is a celebration of the recognition of the tremendous contribution that Mrs. Tyne has made to the lives of a great number of people in our city, that celebration is taking place in a building which she had a

part in planning and developing, namely, the Mississauga Senior Citizens' Centre on Cawthra Road.

In 1975, Mrs. Tyne became the co-ordinator of community recreation and was responsible for the development of arts, youth and seniors programs in Mississauga. Particularly, she was responsible for the inception of the Mississauga Royal Flash Majorette Drum Corps, which has won world recognition. She was also responsible for the establishment of the Mississauga Gymnastic Club, which is training world-class gymnasts.

I am proud indeed to recognize Mrs. Olga Tyne's contribution to our city.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: I would like unanimous consent to make a few comments on the significance of this day for the Armenian community.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement'?

Agreed to.

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that took place on this day 69 years ago, the proclamation of the Republic of Armenia on May 28, 1918.

This date is of great significance to the Armenian community here and to Armenians around the world. Ontario and the Canadian nation have prospered through the courage and industry of people of many nationalities who have come to this land in search of freedom and opportunity. On this day we are especially mindful of the important contributions that our citizens of Armenian ancestry have made to our province and our country since first arriving in Canada to settle in the St. Catharines area in 1886.

The celebration of this anniversary fosters within us a deeper appreciation of freedom, liberty and democratic ideals. On behalf of the government of Ontario, I invite all members of this Legislature to join me in remembering May 28 as Armenian Independence Day.

Mr. Shymko: I would like to join in the remarks expressed by the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) on this very special day.

The 69th anniversary of Armenian independence, proclaimed on May 28, 1918, is once again a reminder to all of us of the sacred responsibility we hold in maintaining vigilance for the very principles and the foundations of our society, of liberty, democracy and freedoms we enjoy both individually and collectively.

It is occasions such as these that not only remind us of that great important factor of vigilance but also remind us of the contribution that many of these communities, particularly today the Armenian community, have made to the growth and prosperity of our province.

I remind my honourable colleague it was 101 years ago, in 1886, that the Armenians first settled in our province at St. Catharines and later in the area of Georgetown. So, certainly over one century, they have contributed to the common endeavour of building the prosperity we enjoy today in this province and in this country.

We have held a very sacred relationship with the Armenian community to remind our society and the world that genocide and the extreme of those horrors is something that happens, but it begins with intolerance, with bigotry and with a disrespect that we sometimes unfortunately hold towards one another and collectively, group against group.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a few remarks in Armenian today, but it is unfortunate that according to a ruling you made recently -- and I have the greatest respect for your office -- the Armenian language or any nonofficial language used only on these special occasions will not deserve translation into the language of William Shakespeare.

I conclude my remarks by asking that the Legislative Assembly, through the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, perhaps consider allowing on occasions such as these any one of us to dignify the occasion by making remarks in the appropriate unofficial language. We should perhaps review the present standing orders and allow for a translation into one of the official languages. I thank the members for the opportunity to address the House on this special occasion.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks on behalf of my party. I think it is important for members of the assembly to realize the difference between Armenian Remembrance Day, which is April 24 of each year, and Armenian Independence Day, which is May 28 of each year. As this is the opportunity for Armenian Independence Day recognition, I naturally will not speak about Armenian Remembrance Day.

It is important to recall the words that were spoken on May 28, 1919, which was the occasion of the first anniversary of the republic of Armenia. To quote:

"`To restore the integrity of Armenia and to secure the complete freedom and prosperity of her people,' the government of Armenia declared that `from this day forward the divided parts of Armenia are everlastingly combined as an independent political entity.'

"`Now,' added the declaration, `in promulgating this act of unification and independence of the ancestral Armenian lands located in Trans-caucasia and the Ottoman empire, the government of Armenia declares that the political system of United Armenia is a democratic republic and it has become the government of this United Republic of Armenia.'"

This was in keeping with a statement that had been made almost a year earlier, on August 1, 1918, when the acting chairman of the Armenian National Council was reflecting on the aspirations of the Armenian people. It is important to read this quotation, because when we reflect on what has happened from then until now, I think we will know the significance of today's events.

"Yes, our republic is small and its bounds are narrow. It is deprived of its best lands, and there is not enough room for all the people. It seems as if conditions are lacking for its independent existence. But I feel that the boundaries of a state cannot remain inflexible for ever. I believe that our borders will spread with the iron force of life, with defence of our just and indisputable rights concerning the occupied lands, and with a new treaty of friendship with Turkey and its allied governments... We have chosen the path of mutual agreement and peace, and we would like to believe that we are not mistaken in this."

As we know, the independence has been lost and the land has been lost, but the spirit of the Armenian people has not been lost. The hope of the Armenians is that their land will be returned to them. We support their hope and call on our national government to assist Armenian Canadians in the quest to fulfil their aspirations.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, l wonder whether I might have the unanimous consent of the House to commemorate briefly the retirement of one of the servants of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

GEORGE LUBINSKI

Mr. Grossman: This Legislature is the sum total of many people's efforts. On television, the viewer gets to see the MPPs, and if they are still tuning in after they have seen us they sometimes see the Clerk of the House and the staff. We all know they get to see the Speaker all the time; mostly during my questions, I might add.

There is more to the Legislature than these people. For example, there are the special constables who keep order, so to speak, in the area surrounding this chamber. Today, my party and l would like to pay tribute to one of the special constables, George Lubinski. George has been with us in the Legislature since 1975, since the time the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and myself, as well as others, joined this assembly.

George first began his career with the province, ironically and maybe coincidentally, maybe appropriately, working in security at the Royal Ontario Museum. Someone thought it was appropriate to move from the museum to keeping equal order in the Legislature of Ontario. For the past five years, George has been serving Ontario, while the gallery is in session, at his post just under the press gallery on this side of the House, which we have come to learn to enjoy so much.

George has seen a lot of history from that vantage point but he has experienced a lot of history in his own life. He fought for the freedom of Poland in the Second World War, escaped the Nazi invasion and was awarded the rank of captain in the Polish forces in exile. Following the war, he served as a Polish liaison officer with the British Army, where it was his duty to help displaced persons, the victims of slave labour and the concentration camps, to find their way back home.

George has certainly earned his retirement. We on this side of the House have come to regard him as a colleague and certainly as a friend. We will miss his thoughtfulness, his cheery "Good day" or "Good afternoon" or "Very good question, sir," as we depart the House every day. George will be leaving us on Friday to spend his well-earned retirement with his wife Henrietta.

To you, George, and to Henrietta, my caucus and I wish you all the very best. We will miss you.

Mr. Breaugh: On behalf of my caucus and I am sure all members, I want to join in the congratulations that are in order for George Lubinski today. There seems to be a regular stream of retirements from that corner of the chamber for some reason. George is one of many distinguished members who will not be around for a little while. I want to thank him for his efforts here as a security officer.

Members will know that part of the job of guarding the chamber entails being here, often when it is exciting and often when it is not so exciting, and part of George's job is to -- perhaps the television cameras could do something extraordinary, Mr. Speaker; George is now appearing just to your left. He is not allowed on the floor of the chamber, but I think he has been here long enough that all members would want to join me in asking that George gets a little picture on the video. We want to congratulate him and hope that he and Henrietta have a fine retirement.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I, too, would like to rise on behalf of the government side of the House to wish George Lubinski well on his retirement. He has served this Legislature well over the past 12 and a half years. George always made us feel more safe around here, particularly me in my 10 years in opposition; and he always gave us directions. We would like to wish George and his family well for his contribution to the Legislature and the province of Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The government of Ontario has demonstrated a strong commitment to the encouragement of independence and self-direction for citizens of this province who have developmental disabilities. Today, I am pleased to announce a multi-year plan that will serve as a road map to maximum participation in society for as many as 11,000 with developmental handicaps in Ontario.

We are launching a series of new strategies over the next seven years. With the co-operation of our partners in the community, the associations and groups that will help deliver these services, we are laying the cornerstone for a new long-term system.

This recasting of future directions is the result of an extensive reassessment of our services to developmentally handicapped citizens in this province. It is the product of a great deal of input and advice from the families of handicapped people, service agencies and interested individuals across Ontario.

Specifically, we are now committing ourselves to the following long-term goals: the establishment of a comprehensive community service system in which all developmentally handicapped people receive the support they require in their home communities, and the phase-out of all institutional placement of people with developmental handicaps.

The introduction of this new era of community living will be advanced through a seven-year series of new service initiatives and program modifications, but before l go into the details I would like to briefly sketch the history of this new vision.

In 1974, the responsibility for service to developmentally handicapped individuals was shifted to this ministry from the Ministry of Health. At that time, Ontario made a major commitment to provide community living alternatives to people with developmental handicaps.

Community service expansion since that time has enabled the ministry to reduce the number of developmentally handicapped people living in institutions by almost 3,000. More important, we have increased the number of those served in their home communities from 4,600 to about 25,000.

The accomplishments of the last decade are the result of our partnership with associations for the mentally retarded and other community associations. In addition, other ministries -- most notably the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health -- launched initiatives which were major contributors to the goal of full integration.

We have accomplished much more than numbers, however. We have learned the concept of community living does indeed work. There is broad agreement that the transfer of developmentally handicapped people from institutions to community alternatives has resulted in an improved quality of life for all concerned. These social and human benefits have convinced us that we are on the right track. This province must now continue to promote a level of integration and participation of its developmentally handicapped citizens that was not previously considered possible.

We are talking about a new era of service to people with developmental handicaps, new forms of living options for these citizens of this province.

Beginning immediately, over the next seven years we will provide a wide range of residential, supported living, employment, day program and support services for 8,000 to 9,000 developmentally handicapped people now living in the community.

We will assist families to better care for their developmentally handicapped children at home through parent relief, infant development and other forms of developmental programs. We will assist the sons and daughters of ageing parents to set up households with the support and supervision they need. We will reform the sheltered workshop system, introducing state-of-the-art forms of affirmative business, employment training and supported employment programs.

We will establish an objective and equitable wage policy for the people in employment training and alternatives to competitive employment. We will provide community-living opportunities for 1,000 developmentally handicapped people currently living in institutions. We will provide community-living opportunities for 1,000 people with developmental handicaps who are now living in nursing homes and we will work with community service agencies to ensure their management skills are equal to the challenges that lie ahead.

It must be recognized that the goal of total community living cannot be accomplished within these seven years. We cannot turn our backs on those who will continue to live in institutions, for the time being at least.

As a result, we will ensure that high-quality services continue to be offered by the institutional sector. Ren