Hansard Transcript 1987-Feb-02 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. O'Connor: I wish to express my concerns to the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) regarding the decision by his ministry to close down the Oakville apprenticeship office.

This satellite office at any given time is serving 1,200 apprentices, has no secretarial support for the two consultants, who spend four days of each week on the road arranging job placements. Consequently, the office is open to the public only two days per week, one day per consultant. Despite these conditions, the consultants are filling a vital need in our community and have established an excellent reputation with the business and industrial community.

I do not believe anybody's best interests will be served by shutting down this local office and requiring everybody to begin dealing with a mammoth bureaucracy in Mississauga at the "Dundas Tower." To go to a Mississauga superoffice will inevitably mean long lineups, delays and no guarantees that those being served will meet with the same consultant on a regular basis.

The Oakville office serves all of Halton and as far north as Orangeville. The minister must not close down this office. Will he not, in the best interests of all concerned, acknowledge that the Oakville office should stay open, with secretarial support, to continue the high level of service that is now being provided? Will he realize that in this particular case, big will not be better?

AUDITOR GENERAL-PRISONS

Ms. Bryden: I bring to the attention of the House a very interesting proposal, in which it is suggested that this Legislature establish a new position to be known as auditor general-prisons. This innovative proposal is being supported by six very distinguished Canadians, who have organized a Canadian Campaign for Prison System Improvement to promote the idea at the federal and provincial levels.

The six distinguished Canadians who are organizing the campaign are Professor Israel Halperin, University of Toronto mathematics department; Archbishop Edward Scott, former primate, Anglican Church of Canada; Clarke MacDonald, former moderator of the United Church of Canada; Pierre Berton, author and broadcaster; June Callwood, author and journalist, and Yvon Beaulne, former ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

The auditor general-prisons, like the Ontario Provincial Auditor, would be appointed by the Legislature, would report annually to the Legislature and would be independent of any ministry. He or she would not supplant the Ontario Provincial Auditor in his role of reviewing how the money allotted to prisons and other ministries is spent. Instead, she or he would review how our prison system is meeting its responsibilities and goals.

TELEVISION PROGRAM

Mr. Reycraft: I draw to the attention of members of the Legislature a recent and superb production by CFPL-TV in London. The program is called Season to Season, A Farmer's Story, and was broadcast last Thursday evening.

To those in this Legislature and in this province who do not know what it is really like to try to raise a family and earn a living by growing crops and raising livestock, this program should be required viewing. Season to Season is about John Walls, a beef and cash-crop farmer in London township near Ilderton, his wife Mary, son Greg and daughters Ellen and Joanne. It is an excellent portrayal of a year on a family farm, as it really happens.

Season to Season shows a farm family working about 280 hectares; dealing with a cash flow of over $600,000 to produce a profit of about $10,000; operating a high-intensity business; contending with steadily increasing production costs, diminishing commodity prices and adverse weather conditions, and doing it all while continuing to contribute to community life in Ilderton.

I want to congratulate CFPL-TV for its superb production. In particular, managing editor John MacDonald, who conceived Season to Season, producer Helen Wainman and cameraman Richard Johnstone have made a very valuable contribution to helping all of us understand the true essence of life on a family farm.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. Davis: The public trustees of boards of education and teacher affiliates must have great difficulty comprehending the apparent flip-flop of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) with respect to a single board of education.

The Ottawa-Carleton French-Language Education Advisory Committee is recommending a single French-language school board with two sections: a Roman Catholic section and a public section. The Minister of Education will have to explain why constitutional advice now says this action is recommended and will not be affected by section 93 of the Constitution Act and section 29 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for it was these specific sections the minister quoted, supported by the New Democratic Party, in refusing to support a Progressive Conservative amendment to Bill 30 that would have provided for diversity of unity with the establishment of a single school board in educational jurisdictions where the public indicated support. It would have been not mandatory but permissive.

Will the Ottawa model be the model for the rest of Ontario in the delivery of francophone education? We ask the minister to pass enabling legislation that will allow for the creation of a single school board for areas that desire it. If it is possible for the francophones, it is also a possibility for the anglophones of Ontario.

HELP CENTRE

Mr. Warner: The unemployed help centre in Peterborough has closed. It has closed because the people who are unemployed in that community were unable to raise $42,000 to keep the centre open. To quote the person who was helping to run the centre, she is afraid that the clients, who number between 800 and 1,200, will be without a place to get the skills they need in order to find a job.

The centre was indeed providing a good service to many people in the community in Peterborough. The "frustrating part" for her, as stated in the Toronto Star, and for this party as well, is "that the need continues to grow and yet the government's priorities go elsewhere."

How true it is. It is so easy for the government to sit back and say unemployed people in a community should raise the necessary funds to keep a centre open, without providing the kind of assistance that this government should be capable of providing. It is frustrating to me as well that this government does not have a solid commitment to assist unemployed people in the community of Peterborough and in other communities around this province.

NURSING HOME

Mr. McGuigan: On January 28 last, the Ministry of Health advertised for persons to submit proposals to provide facilities and operate a nursing home of up to 40 beds in the community of Ridgetown. East Kent has lacked a nursing home for five years because of the precipitate action of the former government and, specifically, of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman).

When he was Minister of Health, he sanctioned the sale of the former Barnwell nursing home and the transfer of the licence and beds to the Progressive Conservative-held riding of Chatham. Rather than cancel the licence of the Barnwell home because of its alleged shortcomings and allot a new licence, the licence and beds were sold and the licence, beds and most of the residents were transferred to Chatham. This action has denied the people of Ridgetown and district the services of a nursing home since early 1982.

1340

Because of my own representations and similar representations of other members, the former government created the Compliance Plan Review Board. This board has the power to review and recommend that minor variants from the regulations can be accepted. Had this board been in place earlier, it is quite possible the Barnwell home could have continued, because the calibre of nursing care was not under question.

I am very pleased the residents of east Kent now see that this injustice visited upon them by the former government can be corrected. We thank the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston).

DELEGATION TO HAITI

Mr. Brandt: I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Legislature a rather interesting activity being engaged in by some 17 residents of the great riding of Sarnia. These residents are among a delegation which has recently returned from Haiti. The leader of the delegation is Ray Wyrzykowski, a local lawyer.

The concept started back in 1984 when some of these residents from Sarnia went to Haiti with the intention of assisting that very poor country by bringing up its standard of living and helping with some of its construction projects. The delegation from Sarnia went there with everything from soap to construction materials, which they are making available to those residents.

I am sure the members of this Legislature would like to applaud the volunteer actions of a group such as that, willing to assist some of our less fortunate citizens in this troubled world of ours.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WILDLIFE '87

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As members of this House know, this government is very much committed to keeping Ontario a world leader in the responsible management of wildlife. So I am very pleased to tell the members today that Ontario will be involved in Wildlife '87, the national wildlife conservation year declared by the federal government.

Wildlife '87 is a national effort commemorating the 100th anniversary of the creation of Canada's first wildlife sanctuary at Last Mountain Lake in Saskatchewan. The program has a number of objectives that are not only a priority for my ministry and the government but for a large proportion of the residents of Ontario.

First and foremost, Wildlife '87 will encourage wildlife conservation activities by individuals, businesses, governments and conservation organizations. We have already begun that encouragement. I am very pleased to announce today that the first winner of the Conservationist of the Month Award celebrating Wildlife '87 has been chosen under the program. It is being awarded to Lloyd Cook of Barrie, Ontario, for his long and distinguished record in the study, practice and teaching of humane trapping.

Recognition of contributions such as those made by Mr. Cook is one purpose of Wildlife '87. In addition, this program will provide a national theme and focus for our conservation activities, encourage and improve networking and dialogue among national conservation groups, and promote public awareness of the world conservation strategy. This is the strategy advocating sound wildlife management and conservation, written in 1980 by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, or IUCN. It is endorsed by governments and independent groups around the world.

Ontario has a long-standing and proud record of leadership in wildlife management. We are an acknowledged leader in the management of fur-bearing animals and the study of rabies. In the 1980s, our highly successful deer management program came to fruition and now stands as an example of sound wildlife management to other provinces and American states.

In this national wildlife conservation year, we will be moving aggressively to do our part. Wildlife conservation year will see Ontario taking steps to better manage black bear population, step up the reintroduction of peregrine falcons to the wild, spotlight our exciting and innovative new educational program called Project WILD and transfer moose to Michigan in co-operation with US conservationists.

We will emphasize our community wildlife involvement program, or CWIP, under which conservation-minded groups can get financial support for projects to improve wildlife habitats. This summer Ontario will make an important announcement with respect to the naming of a wetland of international significance at an international conservation convention in Regina, Saskatchewan.

Ontario will also be a strong participant at the convention of international trade in endangered species to be held in Ottawa this summer. Our active participation in this event will again show that Ontario is, without question, a leader in the field of wildlife management.

I am pleased to announce that during 1987 we will focus our expertise and management policies on the preparation of a discussion paper on long-range wildlife management. This ambitious initiative will take us into the next 100 years of wildlife management and is very much in keeping with the Wildlife `87 theme gaining momentum.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to advise the House that later today I will be introducing for first reading a bill to make an important amendment to the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act. This will provide for the chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth to be elected at large by the residents of the entire regional municipality. This will replace the present method of having the chairman elected by members of the regional council.

This change has the support of the people of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, the regional council and a majority of local councils. With the support of this House, this change will be in place in time for the 1988 municipal elections.

Je tiens à préciser, Monsieur le Président, que ce n'est là qu'un des nombreux changements à nos méthodes d'administration métropolitaine et régionale que notre gouvernement a entrepris d'apporter.

Comme les députés le savent, les municipalités de la communauté urbaine de Toronto examinent et commenteront bientôt les choix offerts pour améliorer l'administration municipale en ce qui concerne sa représentation et sa responsabilité.

Les municipalités ont jusqu'à la fin mars pour déposer leurs commentaires, ce qui, à notre avis, est très important pour la procédure. Avant toute décision finale sur les changements à apporter, il est donc essentiel que nous obtenions les données des municipalités et de la population.

In the near future I will be announcing a study of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. In that announcement, I will set out terms of reference and structure for review. I have been asked by the regional council to make this a wide-ranging review.

Je sais que plusieurs travaux de cette nature ont été réalisés auparavant et qu'on y a peu donné suite. Par conséquent, je préférerais que les régions me fassent elles-mêmes part de leurs préoccupations qui pourront ainsi etre couvertes par l'étude.

We will be undertaking or assisting in other reviews of regional municipalities as time and resources allow.

In conclusion, I want to assure the House that the change proposed for Hamilton-Wentworth is not an isolated event but part of a general strategy. My government intends to move on many fronts to ensure that citizens understand better the functions and capacities of local government in Ontario.

RESPONSES

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Mr. Dean: I would like to reply briefly to the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) regarding the election of a chairman for the regional council of Hamilton-Wentworth by the voters at large rather than by appointment.

Those of us who have a tradition of belonging to county councils know it is a time-honoured process there that the warden or chairman of the council has been elected by his or her peers in the council. It was on that basis that the first and, up to the present time, all of the appointments of chairmen have, after election of the initial council, been made by the members of council.

Having served on such a council for some terms, I have noted that this has worked well. I must agree with the minister that there is support by a majority of the members of regional council, by a majority of the local councils and by a majority of citizens who took part in the plebiscite a few years ago on this issue. Therefore, it certainly is fitting that the majority wish be accommodated in this way.

1350

I must say, however, that I still retain some reservations because of the size of the constituency that will be represented by the regional area, which comprises six provincial ridings. It will make it increasingly difficult for the ordinary person to run for a position such as that. I have some concern that it may restrict the candidacy of people who wish to be a chairman of the region elected in this fashion to those who have private means to ensure their support or, alternatively, partisan political support.

I do not think the latter is something we need in municipal councils. It works well in this area, but I do not think it works well there. I caution the minister and those who follow that this should be something they go into with their eyes wide open, albeit in the name of democracy.

WILDLIFE '87

Mr. Bernier: I want to respond to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and compliment him and his government on recognizing Wildlife `87. I am most pleased that he recognized that Ontario is a world leader in the responsible management of wildlife. I hope he follows the 42-year tradition of the Tory government when it was on that side of the House in the management of the wildlife of this province and continues the sound practices of the previous administration.

I also want to commend the minister in recognizing Lloyd Cook as the conservationist of the month. That is an excellent choice. As we all know on this side of the House, Lloyd Cook is very instrumental in improved trapping programs and humane trapping in this province.

We on this side of the House look forward to working closely with the minister as we celebrate Wildlife `87. One of my very close friends, Jim Hook from Kenora, is on the federal side of that organization, and I know he will keep us all in line.

Mr. Harris: I do not want to compliment the minister at all. I want to talk to the minister about the ridiculous statement on wetlands. Over two years ago, an inventory was taken to evaluate wetlands in Ontario. This is an ongoing process that has now been ongoing for about three years.

Mr. Speaker: Are you tying in with the statement?

Mr. Harris: The major part of the announcement is the big statement they are going to make on wetlands this summer. Today the minister is telling us about a big statement this summer on the wonderful things he is doing towards naming a wetland of international significance. He is not going to do it in Ontario; he is not going to do it today. It is already about two years behind time. He is going to do it in Regina.

On the whole issue of wetlands, we know that absolutely nothing, other than a silly statement by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) saying he is going to do something in a speech copying my leader's statement of two weeks before, has been done. Right now, we are asking farmers and all kinds of people to protect wetlands and we are offering them absolutely no compensation for it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I want to know why, in the statement he made today, the minister was talking about the significance of the announcement he is going to make about wetlands in Regina this summer when he has done absolutely nothing for two years to preserve these wetlands for Ontario or to provide some compensation to the farmers and other land owners we are asking to save these very important wetlands for Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: I too would like to respond to the Minister of Natural Resources. I must say it takes something that can best be described as chutzpah for the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) to get up and launch into a tirade about inaction on wetlands, given the history of the Tory government for the last number of years.

The Minister of Natural Resources has not moved with dispatch on the designation of wetlands. We still do not have a wetlands policy in Ontario. Despite all the years and all the studies, we do not have a wetlands policy in this province.

Before the minister beats his chest too much about the preservation of wildlife, he might take a look at a couple of his own policies, such as hunting deer in the Peterborough crown game preserve. I am not too sure what hunting deer in a crown game preserve does for the preservation of natural wildlife.

Finally, as a form of criticism, I really wonder how the minister can ever be viewed as a conservationist as long as he is willing to negotiate with the federal government to have chemicals sprayed on our forests that do not attack only the budworm but also all forms of life in the forests where the spray happens to fall.

Finally -- a final "finally" -- I commend the minister for his selection of the conservationist of the month award, and I hope he continues this practice.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Mr. Allen: In response to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), I am delighted that the minister has been as good as his word and that he is following through in his co-operation with my initiative to achieve a democratic election of the regional chairman of the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

The minister will know I have been presenting this issue before the House for the last two years. We had a little difficulty with the previous administration when it came to enhancing local government democracy in this way. The previous Municipal Affairs minister was totally unsympathetic, and the cabinet of course followed his advice, and we got nowhere. When I introduced a private member's bill, this House was most gracious in its reception of it and provided in effect unanimous support for the bill when it was debated for second reading.

The government for its own reasons has felt it needs to take responsibility for municipal affairs, and I understand that. I would have preferred that it had come forward with my own bill, but the important thing is that this get done and that the further democratization of the regional government in our area take place.

I want to say the minister is wise, I think, in extending this initiative in a general sense to other regions in the province. I want to say at the same time that not every region is alike in its electoral characteristics, its demography, its scale of operations, its media relations and all the rest. Therefore, I would not suggest that what happens in Hamilton-Wentworth become the exact model for Ottawa-Carleton, or for Toronto for that matter.

I was a little amused that the minister provided his comments on what he was proposing for Toronto in French and for Ottawa-Carleton in English. I did not know whether he was attempting a little obfuscation there and whether we should very carefully read those words to see whether there is anything hidden in them.

May I again say that we in this party all look forward to a greater spirit of democracy in our regional and local governments, and I hope that indicates that the part of my original bill that dealt with enhancing regional representation on police commissions in our region will be followed through. If not, I will have another bill for the minister, and we can work together on that one too.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WESTERN COAL

Ms. Fish: I have a question today for this Legislature's version of Toller Cranston, the Premier. Perhaps he would share with this House why he considered that a photo opportunity at a courthouse, at an Ontario high school and a skate on the Rideau Canal were more important to him than meeting with federal officials to discuss the implication of low-sulphur coal that would reduce Ontario's acid gas emissions by some 50 per cent and be of substantial benefit to Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know how this little matter got out of hand. I gather the honourable member has read the newspaper and Mr. Mazankowski has been telling her about some difficulty co-ordinating dates. To the best of my knowledge, there was never a meeting planned for that particular day in Ottawa when the courthouse was opened and nice things were said about the member's former colleague Roy McMurtry in that regard.

We have tried on several occasions to make an appointment with the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the matter of western coal, as the member may or may not be aware. I have arranged meetings for him with the president of Ontario Hydro. There have been working groups going on. We have been meeting with Premier Vander Zalm and Ontario Hydro as well as officials from the ministry in Alberta.

If the member would like to get into some of the substance of the problems, I will be very happy to discuss them with her, but I can assure the honourable member that I am prepared to meet with her or anyone else on this matter, even though it will be at least five years before anything develops because of the take-or-pay contracts which Ontario Hydro has at the present time.

1400

Ms. Fish: The Premier himself on several occasions has complained about problems and the lack of communication from the federal government on federal-provincial matters. He has had his Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) flying down to the United States twice within a matter of days to try to persuade sportsmen there to join the fight against acid rain. Yet the Premier, with a clear opportunity in Ottawa to respond to the specific request for a meeting that would cut Ontario's acid gas emissions by 50 per cent if implemented, refused to do so. What is he really telling us, that he finds more headlines by fighting the feds than sitting down and having a proper meeting on such an important matter?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Perhaps Mr. Mazankowski wrote that question for my honourable friend today in the House, but I can tell her with great respect that her interpretation of the events is completely fallacious. Indeed, I cannot believe even she believes what she has just said.

Let me explain the situation. There have been many meetings going on. I have already met far in advance of these so-called discussions with Premier Vander Zalm on the subject. I have told Ontario Hydro that I want it to buy everything possible from western coal producers. The member is aware, I am sure, that at the present time the landed price difference in Ontario is something like 47 per cent. In other words, it is substantially cheaper, because of transportation problems and other things, to bring in western coal.

The member will be aware that it would require a very substantial retrofit of the Ontario Hydro plants to use that coal. There are take-or-pay contracts signed by Ontario Hydro with other producers; signed, I do not believe in our administration but in the member's administration. If she is so interested in it, why did she not pursue these matters? I have actively pursued these matters with Premier Getty and Premier Vander Zalm, and Ontario Hydro is going through discussions. I can assure the honourable member I am most anxious to conclude deals if we possibly can. Many details have to be worked out.

Ms. Fish: The Premier has made reference to problems in the contracts and to retrofit in dealing with coal that might come from western Canada, knowing, I am sure, about the substantial retrofit required for Ontario Hydro to be burning high-sulphur US coal, which may be closer.

We have seen the conversion of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) on the road to Darlington when he talks about Hydro being an independent organization -- which the Premier used to refer to as a monster out of control -- and says the final decisions on low-sulphur coal purchased from the west will have to be made by that independent board. Can the Premier tell the House today whether he supports the minister's view that the decision is entirely within Hydro or whether he is going to show some leadership and ensure that the purchase of low-sulphur western coal is made?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I compliment the honourable member on her radical conversion with respect to coal purchased in this country, because that is not something her administration ever did. We are dealing now with a situation we inherited from that administration. If that is her new position on the matter, I am delighted to take it into account. But as I have said, and I will repeat it to the honourable member, I am sure she understands there are take-or-pay contracts in that regard; so even at best, it would take three, four or five years to work out the situation.

I have said to Mr. Mazankowski, as I have said to the member and to the western Premiers, that I believe it is a good thing for Confederation if we can buy in Canada. That is my preference. The honourable minister has expressed that view to his counterparts, as have I. We are searching for ways to do that. I am sure the honourable member would not be so superficial as to think that could be done tomorrow, particularly given those contracts that exist and given the fact particularly that our plants cannot accommodate that western coal at the present time without a massive retrofit.

I can assure the honourable member that we are doing the best we can to clean up the past we have inherited and to go on to build a stronger Canada through the purchase of western coal.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Harris: I have a question to the Premier. He and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) have told reporters that external reviews have shown that Exploracom was not coming together and would need additional money to sustain it year after year. The Premier was also quoted last Thursday as saying, "All the reviews show that the project was being grossly mishandled and was out of control."

Can the Premier tell us which company or companies conducted all these reviews and at what cost?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize that I cannot give the member the exact cost. Coopers and Lybrand was involved, as well as external auditors and lawyers, in looking at the entire situation. I believe Osler, Hoskin and Lang, Michener, as well as other accountants, were involved. I cannot give him the total cost.

Mr. Harris: The Premier has been asked about these reviews on a number of occasions. There are many people who do not believe these external reviews even exist. I say his credibility is in question. His stonewalling is doing nothing to disabuse those people who feel that way, that it is in this case the facts.

The Premier has made very serious allegations about his close friend. He has charged that Mr. Schwartz has mishandled funds, that "The whole project was out of control; expenses were way out of line," and it was not being managed properly. These are his allegations. If he is going to make these types of allegations mean anything, I suggest he had better be prepared to prove them. If these reviews are legitimate and if in fact they do exist, why does the Premier not table them here and now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can assure the member I would be very happy to so do. I believe all the information should come out and, indeed, it will come out. We have had advice from the solicitors that it would not be appropriate at this time to make a response in this Legislature because it is subject to litigation that will be coming down the pike. I am sure that in the final wash, all this information will be shared with the member and I am delighted to see his support for the project.

Mr. Harris: When we questioned this project at the time he announced it, the Premier assured this House it had been properly reviewed. Obviously, that is not now the case. When he pulls the plug on Exploracom, he talks about these mysterious reviews, with vague references to companies he thinks are there. Why should anybody believe him? If all these reviews exist, he owes it to Mr. Schwartz, he owes it to the 46 laid-off employees and he owes it to all Exploracom's creditors to prove why his government reneged on his commitment.

Is Mr. Schwartz telling the truth when he says the Premier pulled out of this project for "strictly political reasons"? I also challenge the Premier; if he does not provide all these so-called legitimate external reviews, why should anyone trust anything he or his government says?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I guess the member has a right to make these inflammatory statements in the House. He is entitled to his view on the subject. I gather he has changed his mind on this whole project. It is an interesting conversion that his party has gone through on the matter.

As I said to him at the time of the original announcement, the concept is something this government believed in. Between the time of the original announcement and the time the contract was signed on terms and conditions everyone understood, it was our view with, as I said outside advice, that unfortunately the deal had not come together financially and it was going to be an operating drain in perpetuity on the taxpayers of this province.

I regret very much the decisions that had to be made. I would have much preferred to see the project go ahead, but we do have a responsibility to the taxpayers. I believe we exercised that responsibility with good judgement in the circumstances.

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the prolonged saga of policy and program development we have been witnessing from this government, the minister told us on December 2 that by January 26 he hoped he would have an agreement with the federal government that would allow federal funding to flow through to private profit-oriented day care centres in this province.

Why is the minister deliberately refusing to use the federal moneys which are available now through the Canada assistance plan to give direct operating grants to the nonprofit day care centres in this province?

1410

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My recollection of needing information from the federal government dealt with the fact that we did not know what the ground rules were going to be in terms of the new programs we wanted to put forward. The member will be well aware that we are now on our way in a joint venture between ourselves and the federal government in establishing what those ground rules will be.

Given the rather short time frame for that joint review -- approximately four to five months -- it seems to me it would make a great deal more sense for us to wait and know what they are before we move ahead on any front.

Ms. Gigantes: As a supplementary, I would like to ask the minister why it is that having had to wait until last June for a policy paper that did not arrive, being told in December we should wait until January 26, now being told we have to wait until the end of June for federal-provincial decisions to be made surrounding the question of funding for private profit-oriented day care services, the minister is refusing to use those mechanisms and funding programs which exist now in federal-provincial agreements under CAP to provide the moneys that nonprofit day care centres and the families who use them need.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: One of the things we want to avoid, if we possibly can, is creating any more inequity in the system. It is our judgement that providing funding assistance to half the system and not to the other is going to create that greater inequity. I remind the honourable member that the document that was prepared for the federal task force clearly indicated that kind of inequity exists at the present time. It does not seem to make much sense, to me at least, that we would do any good by exacerbating an already bad situation.

Ms. Gigantes: What is the minister going to do for the municipally operated day care centre in Wingham where families are going to be facing fee hikes of from $13 to $26 per child per day come July? He has made no commitment that will allow that day care centre to keep operating. His holding back on policy and programs in this area means our nonprofit day care sector is threatened now. What is he going to do?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I believe the honourable member is referring to the situation where that particular municipality was using the indirect grant approach to keep the fees for that day care centre artificially low in terms of the real costs and of the costs that are more appropriate across the province.

The member will also be aware that we have given our assurance to each of those centres that transitional grants will be made available while a financial analysis and review are being made on an individual basis on each of these centres. Finally, it is my hope that by the time that review is complete, we will be able to put some of the new funding mechanisms in place.

PAPER MILL

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Premier regarding the Kimberly-Clark control order issued last Friday.

Over the last month, the men and women of Terrace Bay in the great riding of Lake Nipigon have been the victims of a climate of anxiety that borders on the criminal. Men and women have seen their lifestyle and their community put into jeopardy simply because they were caught in limbo among the Ministry of the Environment's office, a parade of civil servants and the inefficiency of the Premier's office in handling what is really a simple situation.

Can the Premier give us a guarantee today that never again will the people of Lake Nipigon, or for that matter, elsewhere in the province, be put in that kind of limbo, and that he will adopt a reasonable and comprehensive approach to deal with future control orders?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the point the honourable member makes in this Legislature. As one who is intimately involved in that community, he knows at first hand the difficulty that the discussion the government had with Kimberly-Clark has created. I accept that there was some insecurity over that entire discussion.

However, the honourable member will know there were two interests at stake here, which some would view as competing, that were very difficult to reconcile. He will be aware of past control orders that were not honoured. He will be aware of the amount of pollution that is coming out of that plant. At the same time, like myself, he wants to maintain those 1,600 jobs. I do not believe they are competing desires; I believe they are complementary.

That being said, many discussions went on for a long period of time. My honourable friend accuses this government of creating insecurity, but I can tell him there has been insecurity there for a very long period of time over the potential closedown of the mill and over discussions that are going on now with respect to the woodlands. I have been in Geraldton and Longlac; I have sat and talked with people.

I do not think the honourable member would want to leave the impression that this government is the only one that created insecurity. Indeed, I think the government and the minister came in and solved an extremely difficult situation in an honourable way. I think it is a win-win situation. It is our view that the environment will be cleaned up and the jobs will be maintained.

I apologize for any insecurity during the length of the discussion, but the honourable member will know that this government did not create all of that. It has been going on for a long time with respect to the operation of Kimberly-Clark, when there were suggestions it was going to be closed down, not this year but the year before that and the year before that, because it has lost a lot of money We are determined to work with that company to get it profitable and clean up the environment. I think we have accomplished both and I want to thank the honourable member for his assistance in this matter.

Mrs. Grier: We on this side find it very hard to understand how the Premier can allege that it is a win-win situation and that he has accomplished both of his objectives. Can the Premier explain to the House why in all those protracted negotiations there was no negotiation of some guarantees that those jobs would remain, and why the control order that his office finally approved contains this very peculiar clause, clause 3(e), that says very explicitly, "The company reserves its full rights to suspend or terminate operations at Terrace Bay if necessary to comply with the order"?

What security is there in that; and why, instead of negotiating job guarantees, has he negotiated an out for the company and continued the insecurity?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to the honourable member with great respect she is getting very confused on this matter. No one uses control orders to guarantee employment; that is not what control orders are about. They are to control pollution, and that is why it is there.

She cannot guarantee their jobs any more than I can. There has been a down-sizing in the mill, and they are now looking at the woodlands operation. The member would not want me to try to persuade her, or she try to persuade me, that we can use control orders to guarantee employment across northern Ontario.

It is a recognition of the realities of the situation. Any company can close down tomorrow or the day after that -- I cannot prevent that. What we have done is talk to the company about looking for the best technology to solve that problem. As the honourable member knows, as one who is knowledgeable about the environment, there is a considerable amount of disagreement with respect to the appropriate technology to solve that problem, whether it is in-plant solutions or using a lagoon or some external system. There are very different opinions on that matter. Even with a lagoon, it would take a couple of years to build that lagoon.

I think the honourable member is confusing the matter. I do not think she would want to leave the impression that we can control the levels of employment through control orders. I am sure she does not believe that.

Mrs. Grier: I am well aware that control orders do not usually contain guarantees of employment, but they also do not usually contain phrases that say the company has the right to terminate its operations if it wants to, and that was the point I was raising with the Premier.

Can the Premier perhaps go further and explain to this House whether this is how all future control orders are going to be negotiated? Are control orders going to be negotiated by the Premier's office, with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) brought in by plane from New York from the sportsmen's show to rubber-stamp the agreement? Is that how we are looking after the environment in this province at this point? Who is in charge of the environment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to the honourable member, who has gone to the mat many times with the Minister of the Environment --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: So to speak.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: So to speak. She knows full well who is in charge of the environment and she knows how he was lauded in New York. His attention is desired everywhere in North America as the leading spokesman for environmental matters. The member knows that as well as I do. I am very proud of the role we have played.

1420

The minister has demonstrated sensitivity and judgement rarely seen by some of the members opposite with respect to these matters. He has cleaned up the environment; he has saved the jobs. His presence is demanded in New York, Washington, Chicago, Terrace Bay; you name it. That minister is fully in charge, and we are all lucky that he is.

Mr. Harris: He may be a leading spokesman, but when it comes to action he sure pulls up the other end of the donkey.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

Mr. Harris: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Now that we know the deal for Kimberly-Clark has certainly failed miserably in protecting the environment -- in fact, I think the Premier has signalled that US companies are now dictating Ontario environmental policies -- can the minister tell us what involvement he or his ministry had in this deal that gave up on the environment and what job guarantees he was trying to secure or may have been able to secure for the 1,600 workers at Kimberly-Clark?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: This ministry has been fully involved in the discussions that went on and the solution that was found. I was in Geraldton about a month ago dealing with many of the problems related to the woodlands and other things. We had a very successful evening there, and many things were resolved.

Mr. Harris: I beg to differ with the Premier. What we have here is a lose-lose situation. We have lost on the environment, we have accepted a US made-in-Dallas solution for the pollution equipment and we have no job guarantees.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Your facts are wrong. You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. Harris: The company signalled that in order to put in this $20 million that was required to solve the environmental problem, it could afford only $10 million. Did the minister explore $10 million to this company for a win-win instead of a lose-lose? Did he perhaps explore the possibility of an equity position in the company for the sake of $10 million? The $10 million, by the way, is two years' sales tax revenue the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) gets on those products that Kimberly-Clark sells.

Mr. Speaker: The questions have been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: You do not know what you are talking about.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: A couple of comments have come from this side that the member does not know what he is talking about. If he were to go to that area and talk to the people, he would see they are very happy with the decision and solution this government has brought about.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Premier about the study released by the United Steelworkers of America in regard to the future of Algoma Steel and what governments, as well as the company and the union, could do to improve the prospects for the long-term future of that company.

In particular, the union made a number of recommendations focused heavily on getting all the partners involved in the process. The key to that process includes the involvement of the provincial government. The recommendation for the provincial government was that as part of the provincial government's northern economic initiative it should encourage manufacturing industries that consume steel to relocate to Sault Ste. Marie to take advantage of Sault Ste. Marie's key industry.

Can the Premier tell us if he is going to take action in that regard, what that action will be and when we might see such industry locating in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: A great deal of activity has gone on with respect to pursuing that particular idea, not just as a result of that report but prior to that. As the member knows, it was one of the things talked about in the Rosehart report and other reports as well. Obviously, one of the things we would very much like to see is more secondary manufacturing in northern Ontario.

I do not think there is anybody who has looked at northern Ontario for the last 100 years who has not said the same thing. The member will be aware that is much easier to say than it is to do.

There are some discussions going on at the moment with respect to specific projects. I cannot honestly stand in my place and guarantee him that they will be successful. We are most cognizant of our desires to effect that change in northern Ontario and to bring in more secondary manufacturing. We are working on the projects. I wish I had a specific answer for the member, but I do not have one today.

Mr. Wildman: I have a supplementary of the Premier with regard to one of the specific discussions that are ongoing and particularly with regard to the short-term, immediate future of the Algoma Ore division operation in Wawa and the Algoma Central Railway. Can the Premier inform the House when he expects those discussions involving the federal government, his government and the two companies to be completed, and can he confirm that any subsidy of freight rates will involve assurances that the companies will be viable and job guarantees?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Those discussions have been ongoing, as the member knows. This government indicated some time ago it was prepared to sit down and try to find a mutually acceptable solution between the various levels of government and the railroad. In addition, the federal government has recently indicated its willingness to participate as well. I cannot tell the honourable member the results of those discussions today. We are hopeful, but again there are many factors at play here.

With respect to the questions of the member and his colleague, both very legitimate questions, I do not want to raise false hopes. These are difficult discussions that are going on. There are many ramifications, including countervail and other things one has to think about and try to tailor the solutions to match our specific problems. I can assure the member they are very high priority for the government. If the member has any specific suggestions on how to do it, I am most anxious to have his help. We are determined to try to effect a real result, but I cannot tell him today what that will be, if, in fact, there will be one.

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

M. Poirier: J'ai une question pour la ministre des Affaires civiques et culturelles. Depuis quelques semaines, j'ai reçu nombre de lettres de francophones qui ont visité le Centre des sciences de l'Ontario. Certaines de ces personnel sont de mes commettants, d'autres sont des francophones d'ailleurs à l'échelle de l'Ontario, et le courant des lettres était le même. Ils se demandaient ce que notre gouvernement était pour faire pour améliorer les services en français au Centre des sciences de l'Ontario.

J'aimerais que la ministre m'explique, si c'est possible, comment elle va améliorer la situation du français au Centre des sciences de l'Ontario.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I should tell my honourable colleague that the ministry as a whole is on the forefront of impressing on people within our cultural industry, agencies and clients, the importance of our adherence to the use of both languages within our agencies. As part of that, the delivery of French-language services is paramount. We have impressed on all of the agencies in this case the importance of their documenting their commitment within the three-year plan.

I understand that as late as the middle of December, the Office of Francophone Affairs had been in touch with the Ontario Science Centre with some suggestions to which it wanted an answer -- for example, signage, newsletters, the use of French by guides, etc. I am expecting the science centre will report back to that office and I can keep the member informed through that route.

M. Poirier: J'aimerais savoir si ce serait possible que les services soient en place avant les prochaines visites scolaires de fin d'année? Je pense que c'est très important de savoir cela.

Hon. Ms. Munro: The Ontario Science Centre has some tour guides who are proficient in both languages. With the member's question in the House today and the commitment of the science centre, I am sure we will see an escalation. Again, I will keep the member informed about the commitment.

1430

HAZARDOUS SPILL

Ms. Fish: My question is to the Premier. Returning to Ottawa, the Premier has already told us that in the course of skating around the canal he did not have time to meet with federal officials on an important environmental matter. Can he tell us if he did have the time to meet with regional officials on the matter of the Lees Avenue coal tar cleanup?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No. I have not met with them in that regard.

Ms. Fish: Fond as the Premier is of taking environmental matters away from the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), he is surely aware that the regional municipality has already spent in excess of $8 million in cleaning up the coal tar deposits. Will he take this issue away from his Environment minister as well and make a serious offer to Ottawa-Carleton to pay the cost of that cleanup?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This matter is firmly in the hands of the very able Minister of the Environment, and if the member has any questions in that regard, I am sure he will be happy to answer them for her.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Labour regarding a strike in the minister's riding that I think is going to be a major test of the minister's ability to solve labour problems in Ontario. It concerns a strike at Maple Leaf Mills, which is owned by Archer-Daniel-Midland, a major United States company.

What steps has the minister taken to resolve this labour dispute, and in particular, what steps has he taken to turn around the company's position that one of its demands is that the Canadian Auto Workers union at this plant must insert in the contract a clause which will allow the workers to work over 48 hours a week, thus giving up their rights under labour legislation regarding overtime and implementing a policy this company has implemented with all its employees in the United States? Do we have to accept the policies of American corporations contrary to Ontario law?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am very concerned about this strike, as I am concerned any time there is a labour dispute. I am concerned about it not because it is in my riding, not because it is in my community, but because we have 78 men and women on the picket lines in a dispute in Ontario and we want that strike to end as quickly as possible. I want to make that clear to my friend.

I am well aware of this specific issue, which is a very troubling one. It is my view, and that of my ministry, that notwithstanding any agreement that may theoretically be reached along the lines pointed out by the honourable member, the Employment Standards Act will continue to apply with its minimums and individual complaints will be allowed to apply. I believe that, through the involvement of senior officials of the industrial relations division, that point has been made to the company in this dispute.

I want to indicate to the member in a general sense that I have been involved personally, as has my assistant deputy minister and a very senior mediator, Dennis Nelson. We are hopeful the parties will resume direct bargaining within the next week to week and a half.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What efforts has the minister taken to make sure this company does not hire scabs? As he knows, they have advertised in the local newspaper to hire scabs to break the strike, to break the union. He knows they have also recruited scabs through the local Manpower office, which advertised and tried to recruit scabs for this company. What has the minister done with respect to the union's request to him on Saturday that he directly contact the company and indicate that it should not be following this practice in Ontario? Or has he done what he told the union he was going to do on Saturday, which was to bring it back to his bureaucrats to let them make the decision?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I had a meeting with the president of Local 195 -- and I believe he is the deputy plant chairman -- Mike Renaud, on Saturday. The meeting was off the record. I am not prepared to discuss the specifics involved in that meeting. It was certainly off the record from my point of view. That matter was made clear to the gentleman before the meeting. I thought we had a very productive meeting and I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter since that time with a number of people. Beyond that, I do not think any other comments I can make publicly in this House will be helpful to resolving this dispute.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I have now received a copy of a letter from Brian Slemko, director of the food processing branch, to Mr. Squires, president of Natural Fry. This letter states that the minister will be seeking support for money for loan guarantees and that money would be coming from the Ontario Development Corp. and his cabinet colleagues. It goes on: "The administrative details regarding the loan guarantee are presently being prepared by the ministry and the ODC. It is our intention to obtain the appropriate approvals as soon as possible."

It is positive statements such as that, plus phone calls to bank managers by Doug Stone in the ministry, that led potato growers to continue to sell to Natural Fry against their own personal concerns. The minister clearly has some responsibility for the financial position these growers are in. Will the minister not agree that he and his ministry are obligated to help these potato growers?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Legal counsel for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food have advised me that since W. D. Potato Ltd. is contemplating a legal action against the crown, it would not be proper to comment further on the specifics of the Natural Fry situation. Based on that advice, most unfortunately, I decline to answer any such questions in order to protect the rights of the crown in any civil action.

However, if the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) is genuinely interested in the Ontario potato industry, I am pleased to report that progress has been made towards the development of a financial protection plan for processing potatoes.

A meeting in this connection involving the potato board, processors and ministry staff was held last week, and another meeting is planned for this week. Naturally, in the development of such a program, it is necessary through the meeting process to allow for full discussion of all the aspects that have to be considered.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stevenson: The minister will remember his statements made at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture: "I am in the driver's seat. I am in control now."

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a supplementary ?

Mr. Stevenson: Yes, I do. The minister has the responsibility for his ministry and his staff. Why does he not get off his duff and help these financially troubled farmers get out of the mess the minister and his ministry have led them into?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, continuing with the answer to the first question that you thought was a little too long, we are certainly prepared to look into the special problems that have been faced by the potato growers who sold their potatoes to Natural Fry. If indeed the potato growers and processors decide to put a financial protection program in place, I think we can find the way to help them.

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question of the Premier. First, I would like to quote the Premier:

"I am one of those who has become somewhat disillusioned with the process of private members' business and the introduction of resolutions. They have become all motherhood, because nothing happens to them. Theoretically, they should represent the weight of opinion of this House and they should have, at least, a strong moral force in the creation of public policy. But we have seen so many of those resolutions being well debated and then die."

I am getting the feeling that my resolution on nuclear weapons free zones is having the same kind of fate with the government. This weekend I sent the Premier copies of two bills as follow-ups to the nuclear weapons free zone resolution, and I would like his comments on them. The first was on assisting companies such as Litton to convert to civilian production and taking provincial action to assist companies to do that. What is his position on that? Would he be willing to bring in that kind of legislation in Ontario?

1440

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me compliment the honourable member on his choice of authorities. When I want to make my point in this Legislature, sometimes I quote some of the wisest, most thoughtful people I know of, be they some of the great philosophers, great historians or great politicians, be they Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, Spinoza, Schopenhauer or --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Socrates.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Socrates; and I compliment the member on his choice of authorities in this regard. It shows he is very well read.

With respect to the point he has raised in this House, I was not aware he had sent me a letter. I have been dealing with Mr. Mazankowski's mail, which I just received today, but I appreciate his telling me about this. I have not seen the substance of his bills, but I am prepared to discuss it with him when I have had a chance to go through them.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am disappointed that the Premier has not seen it as yet.

The second act is An Act to amend the Planning Act. I have been quite frustrated by the Premier's notion that there is nothing we can do in Ontario that is within our jurisdiction. It struck me that we have the Planning Act. I wonder whether the Premier will support the provision I am suggesting, that every official plan shall be deemed to include a provision that no new facilities shall be established for and no facilities shall be converted to the production of nuclear weapons material in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I understand it, the two bills the member is talking about today have not been debated in this House. Is that correct? Obviously, he would not want me to prejudge something as important as private members' hour. He has the option of bringing them into the House. I look forward to that debate. I was not familiar with his amendment to the Planning Act in that regard, but I look forward to a thorough, wholesome and fulsome debate on the subject. Obviously, this government takes the views of private members very seriously.

The quotation the member used was talking about the past government, not about the present government, which is sensitive to the needs of private members. The member will recall that his very esteemed colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) brought in a motion with respect to the Time Act. He will stand in history as the man who individually changed the way we read our watches in this province and I congratulate him. We do take thoughtful suggestions very seriously and I am sure this member's suggestions fall into that category. After they are fully debated and all the members have had an opportunity to express their points of view, I can assure him that this government will deal with it with all the seriousness it deserves.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Hennessy: On behalf of the people of Thunder Bay, I would like to ask the Premier a question. For seven years, Thunder Bay has been the only city in Ontario where trials are held in hotel rooms because of lack of court space. Lawyers often conduct interviews in halls, stairwells and washrooms. The lack of space and lack of decorum allows jury members to encounter the accused and witnesses, a situation that could lead to a mistrial. Thunder Bay has been fourth on a priority list for new court facilities. Why was Thunder Bay dropped from this list?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member bringing the point to my attention with respect to the inadequacy of court facilities in Thunder Bay. Regrettably, I do not think that is the only community where that has gone on in this province; there are others. He will know that there is a great long list of demands for courtroom facilities across the province. I am not aware -- I could be misinformed -- of Thunder Bay having been struck off any list. I will bring his thoughtful expression of concern to the attention of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who is responsible for these decisions.

Mr. Hennessy: In view of the Premier's concern about the north and his trying to represent northwestern Ontario with Liberal people, it seems very odd. Thunder Bay was fourth on the list. He gave courtrooms to Toronto, North Bay and Ottawa, but when it came time for the city of Thunder Bay to receive its courtroom, he conveniently took it off the list. He should not tell me he does not know he took it off the list. Why is he trying to treat the people in northwestern Ontario -- he gets up and gives us a foolish answer such as that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the thoughtful way the member puts his point. I am not sure what his point is about the Liberals being involved in this whole matter --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not aware of that. I can tell him that this government has done a great number of things to support activity in northern Ontario. There is no question about that. I think the member will recognize that. On the point he raises, I said I would undertake to discuss it with the Attorney General. As I said, I am not aware of it being cut off anyone's list and I appreciate the honourable member's concern.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour about the swamp. I have a letter and a document, dated one day apart, January 19 and 20, both signed by the Minister of Labour. In the one document, the Minister of Labour says to me with respect to the number of convictions of workers and employers, "The number of employers convicted under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 158; the number of supervisors, 56; the number of workers, 28." The next document, one day later, signed by the Minister of Labour, says, "The number of companies convicted, 158; the number of workers who were charged and convicted, 229." Can the minister tell me which one of these two documents I should believe?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Without looking at the two letters, I would have to check a minor, little detail, which is whether the time frames involved are exactly the same. I am sure the honourable gentleman likes to stand up and raise these questions out of the blue. Quite frankly, if he would like me to give him an answer, for the period between April 1986 and November 1986, the total was 198-118 employer-owners on a total of 138 counts, 37 supervisors on a total of 41 counts and 19 workers on a total of 19 counts. I also presume the member is not mixing individuals and companies in the number of counts, but until I look at those documents I cannot give him any better answer than that.

Mr. Martel: Since the fiscal year is 1985-86 on both documents, I cannot figure out the discrepancy, but maybe the minister can tell me the other discrepancy.

He is the tough fellow who is going to lay charges against everyone. Can he tell me why in the first fiscal year, 1984-85, there were 161 companies convicted and in 1985-86 there were 158, or three less; while at the same time, in the year 1984-85 there were 87 workers convicted and in 1985-86, his first full year, there were 229 workers convicted? Will the minister tell me who he is after, if it is not workers, where he has tripled the number of convictions and with the employers he reduced it by three? Is his position, as it was on Dateline Ontario, that it is the dumb workers who create their own problems and that is why he lays charges against them?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I certainly approve of my friend's dedication to health and safety, but the problem with my friend is, he plucks a one-year number out of thin air and says, "This shows...." The problem with my friends on the other side is that they ask their questions and then they will not listen to a response.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The problem is that a figure is plucked out of mid-air over one year, one specific figure. In asking his question, I notice the honourable gentleman did not wish to use the figures of the first nine months of this fiscal year, in which the recommendations to the legal branch for prosecution went up 95 per cent over the previous year. That figure includes companies, supervisors and workers. Unfortunately, it does not fit into the neat little world the honourable gentleman is trying to create and so he did not use it.

1450

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. Callahan: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. On my way up to Barrie on Friday evening, I heard a soliloquy being put forth by the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe) -- in a mini-torial, they call it -- under the title "Barrie Drivers Are Ripped Off." He was addressing the question of the fixed tax as opposed to the ad valorem tax. I felt it was unfair that he went on to say that the Treasurer would have nothing to do with those additional funds. I would like to give the Treasurer an opportunity to tell us all the things that have to be looked after as a result of the inactivity of the previous government.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I certainly appreciate this special opportunity. I left my notes on the answer in my other suit. The honourable member really has inherent in his question the answer I would like to have put to the House, that is, that we decide democratically in this jurisdiction what the tax will be on a litre of motor vehicle fuel or gasoline. We think that is the appropriate way to do it.

In fact, we reduced the taxes at that time from the ad valorem 20 per cent, as it would have been. The member would know the projections for gasoline tax revenue of just a shade over $1 billion are right on target. As a matter of fact, it is one of the few projections of revenue that has not changed since the budget.

One of the things that concerns me is that the revenues are down a bit as more efficient cars are brought on. The buoyancy of the economy has this effect, that more people are able to go out and buy a new car with the efficiency of the new engines. This is affecting our revenues in a negative way.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would just want to rest until the other members stop shouting across the floor.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier. The Premier will be aware that approximately two weeks ago I wrote a letter to him requesting a meeting that was asked for by a delegation from the city of Sarnia to discuss assistance for my community, which, as the Premier is aware, is undergoing some very serious unemployment problems as a result of the slowdown in the petrochemical industry.

My understanding is that the Premier did indicate to reporters outside of the House that he was prepared to meet with that delegation. My question to the Premier today is whether a time has been established with his office for the representatives from the Sarnia city council to meet with him. If not, will he agree to have his office make the necessary contacts to set up that meeting?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member's bringing these important matters to my attention in the House. I

s was quite aware of it and I did say I would be happy to meet.

Regrettably, since the member conveyed his message to me, I learned that the mayor of that community is very ill, and I am very sad about that situation. Of course, like many of his friends, I am optimistic that he will be recovering very quickly. It seemed appropriate that we would attend his recovery. As I understand it, he is currently in the hospital, although I may be wrong, but I am hopeful that as soon as he is out of the hospital and feeling better, we can get together.

Mr. Brandt: I want the Premier to be aware of the fact that there are some 900 out of 1,000 construction workers in one particular union at the moment who are unemployed in my community, and the figures would indicate that in the construction trades alone perhaps some 75 per cent of the construction workers are currently unable to find work.

The Premier is also aware, I am sure, that most of the growth that he and the Treasurer talk about in such optimistic terms relative to Ontario is taking place generally in the Metro Toronto area. The citizens of this province who live in the north, who live in the east and who live in the western part of the province are not enjoying the same level of buoyancy in the economy that they brag about so frequently on that side of the House.

I would like to ask whether the Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) or other members of his cabinet have any ideas, any solutions, any programs to bring forward that might alleviate the very critical unemployment problem my colleagues are facing in the north, many in the east, certainly in my community and others in the western part of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am aware of the letter the member sent. As I recall, he asked me to move a ministry of the government to Sarnia. That was his specific suggestion to solve the problem. If my thoughts are wrong, then the member, I am sure, will correct me. He will be aware of the great decentralization program where we are in the process of moving thousands of jobs out of Toronto, particularly to northern Ontario, to try to stabilize those economies.

I think the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) was the first one to stand up and say, "In spite of the buoyancy of the economy in this province, we recognize those regional disparities." He has applied a substantial amount of funds to solving those problems.

Sarnia is one community; there are other communities that are having difficulties at present. Interestingly enough, this morning I met with a number of people in the chemical industry and I am somewhat familiar with the problems they are having.

We are, obviously, concerned about issues such as pricing, competitiveness, surplus tests and other things to keep that industry competitive. Any help the member can be in talking to his federal colleagues, his close friends in Ottawa who make so many of these decisions, to keep the petrochemical industry healthy and alive would be very much appreciated, not just by me but by his electorate in Sarnia as well.

I do not honestly think his suggestion of moving a ministry there is particularly constructive. It is one of the problems we have in this House. When we move a ministry somewhere else, everybody else would like to have the same ministry. I do not think at the moment that is what we are planning to do, because of the chronically depressed area of northern Ontario where we are putting our efforts at the moment.

However, we are looking at a number of industrial development opportunities right now. I know the honourable member has been looking at them. I am not in a position to announce anything today, but perhaps we can in the future.

I remind the honourable member, just in case he gets too pessimistic about this situation, it is tough there, but the employment numbers are better in this province than they have been in six years. That is a measure of the Treasurer's competence in running this province.

ENERGY-FROM-WASTE PLANT

Mr. Reville: Seeing that the Premier has not been able to talk out the clock, I would like to pose a question to the Minister of the Environment.

The minister has been sharing his joy at his reappointment to his ministry twice in this question period with my friend from Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). Now that he is in charge of the Ministry of the Environment again, I would like him to tell the House what he has decided to do as Minister of the Environment with the energy-from-waste proposal, a private sector proposal capable of burning 650 tons of garbage per day in the city of Toronto; whether or not he has decided to subject that private sector proposal to a full environmental assessment under the Environment Assessment Act, given that the citizens think a moratorium on energy from waste is a much more appropriate idea than speeding ahead with an energy-from-waste plant in south Riverdale.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I guess what the stand might be would depend on whom the member would speak to and in what part of Ontario. I think there are a number of people on city council who have different points of view on this matter. I think Alderman Richard Gilbert -- is he a New Democrat? -- was in favour of it and others have not been in favour of it; so there is a division of opinion even within other parties.

I expect for the member's sake that we will have a decision very soon, because we now have information from the city council on what direction it would like to take; so I think we are now in a position to be able to give an answer to the member at the earliest opportunity. I know he has a sincere interest in this matter.

PETITIONS

DIALYSIS UNIT

Mr. Warner: I wish to table the following petition:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That the Ministry of Health respond to the need for a renal dialysis unit at Scarborough General Hospital, since no such unit exists between the city of Toronto and the city of Kingston."

It is signed by 173 people. This brings the total now to 397. There are many more to come until we get that unit.

1500

HOSPITAL CLOSING

Mr. Guindon: I have a petition, which reads as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

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

"That any decision to close Macdonnell Memorial Hospital in Cornwall, Ontario, would add to an already unacceptable jobless rate and would only serve to add to unemployment and welfare rolls. We request the reassessment of this so-called cost-saving proposal so as to not cause undue hardship to employees of Macdonnell Memorial Hospital; and that guarantees of no job losses be put in place should the Minister of Health proceed with the building of another facility in Cornwall."

It is signed by 330 residents of Cornwall.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the select committee on the environment be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 5, 1987, following routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 192, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act and the Municipal Elections Act.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mr. Offer moved first reading of Bill Pr66, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved first reading of Bill 193, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Let me apologize for not having a form to go with the bill. My mind was elsewhere. Members should not ask me where.

I have a brief comment or two about the bill. This is an amendment to the Planning Act, which will do two things. First, it will add to the list of factors the minister must consider in carrying out his duties, the question about whether health, social fabric and environment are threatened by the production of nuclear weapons material.

Second, it will be deemed to be the case that all official plans in Ontario will make impossible the production and manufacture of nuclear weapons or their component parts in Ontario.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ECONOMIC CONVERSION ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved first reading of Bill 194, An Act to provide for the Conversion of Technologies and Skills used in the Nuclear Weapons Industry to Civilian Uses.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This bill is the first of its kind I know of in Canada, although similar bills have been brought before Congress in the United States. Essentially, it provides for any company that is involved in a nuclear weapons contract to undertake establishment of a committee of its employees, its management and people from the community to work on a plan to convert the uses of that plant after the expiration of the contract for civilian uses, and if no plan can be brought about for those purposes, at least to provide a fund to protect the workers who would lose their jobs at the end of that contract.

HIGH STREET RECREATION COMPLEX OF ST. THOMAS AND ELGIN ACT

Mr. McNeil moved first reading of Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the High Street Recreation Complex of St. Thomas and Elgin.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 161, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984;

Bill 163, An Act to repeal the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982, and the Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act, 1983;

Bill 164, An Act to repeal the Farm Loans Act and the Farm Loans Adjustment Act;

Bill 186, An Act to amend the Election Finances Act, 1986.

1510

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

On vote 301, ministry administration program:

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Premier (Mr. Peterson), who will be responding to these estimates, will be here in a moment. He is washing his hands.

Mr. Chairman: Do you wish to speak for a while until he gets here?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure that if the honourable members want to address comments or questions, our efficient public address system will bring their views to him as he even now moves towards the chamber.

Mr. Wildman: If the Premier is within earshot, perhaps I can make a few comments.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, I cannot hear you.

Mr. Wildman: If you cannot hear me, he cannot either. I said, if the Premier is within earshot, I will make a few comments.

I am particularly concerned, under the main office of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, about two or three particular issues. The first I would like to deal with is the question of aboriginal rights.

As the House knows, the federal government and the provincial governments, along with the native organizations in this country, made a commitment that by this year a conference would be held that would deal with a constitutional amendment related to native rights. I understand that a conference was held just within the last couple of weeks in Halifax in preparation for that conference.

The impression from reading the press is that the conference was not very successful; that in fact there are major differences between the federal government and the Indian organizations. Certainly the comments of Mr. Erasmus during the conference and subsequent to the conference do not bode well for success in reaching a consensus that would be acceptable to the aboriginal organizations as well as to the federal government and the provincial governments, or certainly all of the provincial governments.

The Premier will recall that at the time in October when the Chiefs of Ontario held a rally in front of the Legislature, the aboriginal organizations of this province requested a commitment from the provincial government that this government would not enter into an accord with regard to the passage of a constitutional amendment unless such an amendment were acceptable to the aboriginal organizations.

Basically, what they were asking for was a veto, and I am not sure what the Premier's view is of that. It seems to me that what the Indian organizations are asking for is that they will not be faced with a fait accompli; that they will not be faced, as was Quebec earlier, with the kind of kitchen accord that brought about an amendment and a historic change to the Constitution that was not acceptable to that province.

What the aboriginal organizations of Ontario are requesting, what the Chiefs of Ontario are requesting, basically is that no agreement will be accepted by the government of Ontario unless that agreement on the wording of an amendment has in fact already been accepted as appropriate by the aboriginal organizations of this province.

I do not know whether it would be better for me to go on with the other matters I wanted to raise or whether the Premier would like to respond immediately to that particular issue.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very happy to respond now. Just as a matter of general style of conducting the discussion, I am very happy to respond issue by issue. Let me say that if the member takes exception to something I say or would like to add to it, or if some other member wants to add remarks on this issue while we are discussing it, then I am very happy to conduct the discussions this way; because it is a difficult issue, the honourable member will be aware of that. It is complicated, and it needs the advice and benefit of all members of this House. I suspect it is one of those issues that we all care about. We all have some knowledge about it, and particularly as we are moving towards a first ministers' conference on this issue on March 26 and 27, I am anxious to have the benefit of the experience of my colleagues.

The member is quite right; although I will be intimately involved in these discussions, the essential carriage is with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who was in Halifax a couple of weeks ago at those discussions. Really, we continue on the same line I inherited from my predecessor, Mr. Davis, and others in the previous government. In general terms, we would like to see a constitutional amendment. We would like to see the native peoples included, and in the long run we want to see the setting of the terms for self-government to be negotiated.

I do not want to be presumptuous. I suspect everyone in the House agrees in general terms with that thrust. If some do not, I would be happy to have them share their views with me. Certainly, it would be helpful to me and the Attorney General when we go to the talks in a couple of weeks to have that assistance from the House, knowing we have our colleagues standing behind us on this issue.

I recall the meeting on the front lawn, and I recall the question in the House that day with respect to the veto. Will we sign anything that has not been agreed to by the native people? I say to the honourable member that even though that sounds good and is something that would be nice to say "yes" to, it is more complicated than that. I cannot give him that absolutely flat assurance.

I can assure him that if the native people of this province do not like what is coming out of these discussions, it will give us great pause. It is not our intention to railroad something over them. It is something we want to discuss, negotiate, share and consult with them about. I can assure him I do not think we are going to run into a back room, make a deal and foist it down other people's throats. To give that blanket assurance that we will not under any circumstances raises a number of questions.

One, whose veto? As the member knows, no group, including the native people, is monolithic. They have their elected organizations, as do we, but there are a variety of different voices. There is no guarantee there will be unanimity in that regard. As I said, we ignore their advice in these matters at our peril, but I think we have to leave the government some flexibility in that regard.

Second, it depends on the discussions with our colleagues and peers at the first ministers' conference, what will come out, the kinds of shades and nuances. My experience with these things -- and I do not pretend to be all-seeing or all-knowledgeable about these issues -- is that compromise is frequently the order of the day.

This is going to be a difficult decision. I say to my honourable friend -- and I am not here to criticize my sister provinces or Premiers in any way -- this province is one of the most advanced on this particular issue. We are further ahead than a number of the other provinces in the sense of looking for a settlement.

It may be what comes out of the pipe. It is not going to be my decision; it is going to be agreed on among my peers. It may not be perfect. Maybe other people will want more. Then we will have to ask the question, "Shall we go part-way? Is half a loaf, a quarter of a loaf or three quarters of a loaf better than no loaf?" We do not know the answers to those questions at this time.

I would not like to saddle the people of Ontario, the government and my colleagues with an absolutely flat assurance on that matter. As I have said, if we come to a conclusion with which the member disagrees or the native people disagree, we make that decision at our peril. Leadership is sometimes a lonely job. No matter what we do, we will be criticized.

It is like this House. I come in here and I know I am going to be criticized, no matter what happens. That is the reality of the business. We want to make a fair-minded decision. We are committed to rectifying some historic injustices with respect to our native people. The member would be aware of some of the offers of land claims and other things that have been made that frankly, in an historic perspective, are major breakthroughs.

The member can argue, and I would argue, that it is not happening fast enough. There are still lots of frustrations for all of us in this regard. I cannot give my honourable friend that blanket assurance, but I am most anxious to hear any advice he has in that regard. I hope I have answered his question.

1520

Mr. Wildman: I would like to ask a supplementary to this.

Mr. Sterling: I have a supplementary as well.

Mr. Chairman: On the same subject or a different subject?

Mr. Wildman: On the same subject; it is just a supplementary. I know the interest of my friend opposite because of his former responsibilities in cabinet on this issue.

I understand the comments the Premier has made. I would like to ask him specifically whether he can give us some idea of how the Ontario delegation to the conference will be made up. I recall that in the earlier discussions of the Constitution and native rights, a number of representatives of Ontario aboriginal organizations were included in the Ontario delegation. Also, I thought the then minister, the Honourable Tom Wells, was very gracious in extending an invitation to one member, I think, of each of the two opposition parties at that time to attend as observers to the conference. It was most helpful. I agree with the Premier that it is important for all members of this House, as well as the members of the government, to be informed and to know what is going on. It might be beneficial if members of the opposition can attend as observers; obviously they are not participants.

In regard to what the Premier said about the difficulty in gaining unanimity, that is well taken, but if the Premier is unable to say categorically that no agreement will be reached without the full acceptance of the native organizations, at least it is important for us to note the Premier said reaching an agreement that is not acceptable to the native organizations would be at the peril of the government. I think that certainly is an indication this government is prepared to do everything it can to gain unanimity or to gain consensus -- consensus perhaps is a better term -- on whatever proposals are made for Indian rights in the amendment to the Constitution. I accept that view. I understand what the Premier is saying. Perhaps he can give us some indication of how the Ontario delegation will be constituted.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are inviting, to all ministerial meetings, representatives of the Ontario Metis and Non-Status Indian Association, the Chiefs of Ontario and the Ontario Native Women's Association. To the best of my knowledge, the relationships are reasonably close. They are familiar with what we are doing.

We are privileged to have an Attorney General who is very knowledgeable about these issues and who has spent a good part of his professional life, prior to coming into public life, dealing with these questions. Apart from having a professional interest, he has a deep, personal interest as we sort through these problems. I am delighted I will be able to have his assistance.

The member's idea is excellent. I had not really applied my mind to the question of the composition of the delegation but I hereby invite the member. It is an excellent idea. Perhaps the appropriate thing to do is to signify that to the leader of his party, who will make the appropriate designation. I will be very happy to have the member. I particularly hope his leader will choose him because of his great knowledge and interest in this subject and the help he can be to the Ontario delegation. I will do the same thing with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman). I hope we have all the help we can get in resolving these questions.

It is not going to be an easy fight. I am one of those people who are great optimists in life. I want very much to see a resolution. A lot of things have been hanging around in our society for a long period of time and are not going to go away. My view is we should wrestle with them, deal with them and get on with building the future.

This one certainly antedates me; I hope it does not postdate me, or any of us for that matter. We need everybody's help. I will officially extend that invitation. I will ask the deputy minister to do that. If I forget, he will remind me.

Mr. Sterling: I believe the Premier has acknowledged the role of the previous government and basically has stated that our position has not changed with regard to the thrust Ontario took in trying to propel our native communities to the status of self-government. He has also learned that to propel people to that status is not as easy as just handing over power and control to a group of individuals, because they live in a very complicated society and have very many different relationships with society.

In Ontario we have status Indians, nonstatus Indians, Metis, status Indians who live off reserves and status Indians who live on reserves. We have a number of different native communities to deal with. In dealing with self-government, we have to try to deal with all those different groups. I do not think many people in Ontario are aware that Ontario has more natives than any other province in Canada, although they do not make up as great a percentage as other groups do.

Having been one of the ministers who was involved, two constitutional conferences ago, with the delegation that went to the conference and with the people who were involved with it, I advise the Premier to listen very closely to one group, the native women's group. The native women's group probably has its feet more firmly planted on the ground than any of the other native groups one may talk to. In my view, they have the genuine concerns of the native communities within the grasp of their understanding and are most anxious to make progress of any sort in improving their situation and making their communities become more self-determining.

The Premier knows that some time ago Ontario, I believe along with Manitoba and New Brunswick, supported the entrenchment of principles that would lead to the altering of section 35 of our Constitution. I ask the Premier whether he still stands behind the entrenchment of those principles and whether other provinces or the federal government have fallen in behind him.

I understand that this next conference is the last conference to deal with aboriginal rights for which a timetable has been set. Because I am somewhat removed from the negotiations at this time, I am not aware whether there are plans to hold subsequent conferences dealing with native rights, and in particular with self-government.

The only other piece of advice I will offer is that no one in all these discussions ever seems to talk about the burdensome side of government. They talk about exercising the powers of government; they talk about exercising the power to make rules, to run courts, to run their police forces and to run their educational systems.

I have no objection to allowing a far greater amount of autonomy in dealing with these matters, and after some kind of trial period, perhaps even going farther and farther down the road to allowing them all kinds of liberties in terms of self-government, but somewhere along the line some politician has to stand up and ask: "Where does the responsibility end in terms of self-government? Where does that stop? Where does the right to make the rules and spend the money, the right to do all these different things stop, and where does the responsibility in terms of obligations come in? When do native communities have to become financially responsible or partially responsible?" There have to be some choices, when you talk about governing, for communities not only to benefit in some ways but also, if they make wrong decisions, to suffer in some ways as well.

1530

I do not have the firsthand experience in the riding I represent that the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has. When I was Provincial Secretary for Justice, I believe I engendered a certain degree of trust between myself and the native communities. Although we did not seem to progress in terms of advancement in a lot of ways, I think the former government -- Mr. Davis, Mr. McMurtry, Mr. Wells and, I hope, myself -- was propelled by the right motives in terms of trying to push the progress of this whole process forward.

I had hoped the Premier, along with the Attorney General and the government, would continue that process in the future. Given the goodwill of all members of the Legislature, as exhibited by the member for Algoma and I can speak on our party's behalf, we are very much in favour of going down this road and will support the government's efforts to deal with this problem.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate very much the thoughtful remarks by my colleagues on this issue. We all share, for want of a better word, a collective sense of guilt and a collective sense of determination to try to do something with this question. I cannot honestly predict the result to the member, with the role of the other provinces in this matter. As the member knows, Ontario does not have the right to go it alone. I think my honourable colleague is right that the last formally agreed-to meeting was two years ago. That was the last regularly scheduled meeting resulting from the last constitutional round.

At that point, the complexion of the country was quite substantially different to what it is now. As the member knows, the people who agreed to that were a latter-day set of Fathers of Confederation, people like Bill Davis, Rend Lévesque, Lougheed and others who were in the country, and then Prime Minister Trudeau. The interesting question is going to be to find out the resolve of the new round of players.

As the member knows, the political leadership in this country at the first ministerial level has changed quite substantially in the last couple of years. There has been a more than 50 per cent turnover. It is going to be an interesting thing to see the resolve of that group. I think that first group that I talked about -- Messrs. Davis, Trudeau and others -- did have a determination to try to solve this problem, could not solve it, but left it over for a couple of meetings and were hoping something would result out of it. I do not honestly know how it will turn out. There might be a decision coming out of it to meet again if some of the issues are not resolved. Frankly, I think a lot of it will depend on the leadership of the Prime Minister.

That is not to say for a moment that I do not have a responsibility in this matter. I do and I accept that, but I think it is not impossible that the Prime Minister, if he seizes this as an issue of personal responsibility and is prepared to drive it, as he has the greatest power to drive the national agenda, could make things happen; if not at this meeting then at some future meeting. That is something for the future to determine. I just say to the member that I hope we do not need any more meetings. I hope we can solve it at this next meeting. That will be the approach that I will take with the members' help and guidance.

To answer the member's question with respect to the change of the sexual equality provisions of section 35, we are still supportive of the policy position taken at the first ministers' conference in March 1985. I am told it has not been a major focus of the discussion over the past 12 months but is, in fact, still on the agenda.

I hope I have answered the member's questions. I hope his leader will choose him to join us on that occasion when we can take advantage of his specific advice.

Mr. Sterling: May I just make one other brief comment? One of the problems in dealing with native rights that I experienced was over who is responsible for which group of native people one is dealing with. There has always and for ever been a confusion as to who is responsible for which individuals in dealing with natives. Who is responsible for natives who live on reserves? Who is responsible for natives who live off reserves? Who is responsible for the Metis? Who is responsible for our first aboriginal people? Who is responsible for nonstatus natives?

The problem is that the confusion continues. My suggestion to the Premier is that he should try to draw some lines as to who is going to be responsible for this group and who is going to be responsible for that group. No matter what resources he or his government is kind enough to put forward for the native community, if he duplicates what the federal government is responsible for, he will be diluting his efforts.

It has always been my feeling the Premier should draw the line in terms of his responsibility for dealing with nonstatus Indians and their needs in urban communities, in dealing with Metis and in dealing with status Indians who do not live on the reserves and leave the other matter for the federal government to deal with. If he could draw those lines more distinctly, I think progress could be more easily made.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That point is well taken. The more we delve into the detail of this situation, the more we see how infinitely complicated it is. We tend to think of status Indians on reserves when we think of the native people question. As the honourable member said, it is way beyond that, to people in urban communities in the south and others as well.

I do not know the answer to his question about who is responsible for whom. It is an extremely difficult decision we have to make. I remember when we came in to form the government a year and a half or so ago, I asked myself the question, "Should this matter have a separate minister responsible for native affairs?" We came to the conclusion it would not be too sound a thing to do organizationally. How do you deal with native health, education, housing, policing and all the other things that are part of the system'? It is part of their community; so we do it through a cabinet committee, chaired by the Attorney General, the minister responsible for native affairs.

In a way, that is the same organizational problem we have when organizing a difficult concept like race relations or women's issues for that matter. Women are obviously involved in every single part of every ministry right across the board. It is the question of trying to co-ordinate our response, getting everyone singing out of the same hymnbook and forcing each ministry to take an active and supportive role in the policy and direction the government has set.

The member's advice is well taken. I do not have a better answer for him than that at the moment. We will try not to let this thing get so diffused that it ends up turning into nothing.

Mr. Wildman: I do not want to prolong this issue, but there are a couple of comments I want to make in conclusion. Perhaps the Premier can respond to them.

In regard to his statement that the players are different, that is quite true, but there are still some players who were around at that time. One is Mr. Pawley and the other is Mr. Hatfield. Along with Ontario, those two provinces and those two Premiers were out front in trying to bring about a satisfactory consensus to all. There were some problems other provinces had, whether it was British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Alberta particularly; Nova Scotia had some difficulties as well.

In regard to Quebec, I know I am simplifying it, but it seems to me that at the time, because of the differences between the péquiste government and the federal government and the fact that the kitchen deal had been made behind the back of Mr. Lévesque, the Quebec government took the position that it was not going to participate. It did not see the new Constitution as being acceptable because it was not part of the deal. With thiss, they sat there and basically did not say very much.

With Mr. Bourassa now, with the new government and the new view of Quebec's position in confederation, particularly with the new Prime Minister, who is from Quebec and who perhaps, unlike his predecessor, can take a fresh look at this, we do have a chance to move ahead and bring about a consensus, at least among the number of provinces that are required to bring about a satisfactory conclusion.

1540

I want to make a couple of comments about the question of self-government. I understand the view of my colleague the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) that not only must people who are gaining self-government understand the rights involved and the right to set the rules and determine their own destiny, but also they must take on the responsibility.

I submit that in a situation where people historically have not been given the opportunity to make mistakes, we, the people who have decided they should not have been given that opportunity, have to be prepared to accept the fact that in some cases they will do so. It is going to be a long learning process for the aboriginal organizations, the Indian bands and for us. We have to be prepared to say that we accept the fact that not everything is going to go right and that there will be problems. I think everyone involved understands there are going to be problems.

I for one have a great deal of confidence, though, that the Indian bands of this province and the other Indian and aboriginal organizations have a great deal of expertise and ability, not only to represent the concerns of their people well but also, if and when they are given the chance, actually to institute and implement programs and policies that will respond to and deal with those concerns in a much better way than white governments -- forgive me if I use that term, but I am going to use it -- have been able to do.

My friend the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) has a lot of sympathy for what I am saying. I know his interest in this issue and I understand the interest of the Attorney General as well.

I am optimistic; I am not pessimistic about self-government. There are going to be problems. It is not going to be easy, but whenever you are talking about the self-determination of people, you have to be prepared to say that the destiny of that people will be determined by them as much as possible and that if sometimes they take a wrong turn on the road to their destiny, that is to be expected, but we will not condemn them the first time a mistake is made.

With regard to the responsibility for the various types of aboriginals we have determined through the Indian Act and other pieces of legislation -- because it is we who have made the divisions, not they -- it is important to recognize there is a large group of people who have historically fallen between the cracks.

The problems of Indian women have already been mentioned. We have had the issues about Metis and nonstatus people raised time and again, but we have also had a group of status Indian people, people who are treaty Indians, who do not live on reserves. In my riding, I can point to the community of Hornepayne, where there is a long-established community of mainly status Indian people who have no reserve. They are living off the reserve. Many of them are members of one or other of the Longlac bands, but they are many miles from Longlac. Some are even members of the Moose Factory band and are even more distant from there and were not born there. They were born and raised in Hornepayne, but they have no reserve.

It is a condemnation of white government historically. Those people did not receive any education until 1968 because they were status Indians. If they had lived on the reserve, they would have got an education, but because they lived off the reserve, they were not seen as the responsibility of the provincial government because they were status Indians, and they were not seen as the responsibility of the federal government, because they were not living on a reserve. We have had many problems in that community because they were missed and were not served by either of the governments. Since 1968, of course, they have been eligible and are being educated through the local board of education or the separate school board, with funding from the provincial government.

I think it is also important for us to remember in talking about self-government that it was not until the 1960s that Indians were allowed to vote in this country. That was not very long ago.

The Premier said we all share the guilt. I suppose that is a facile comment, I do not think he meant it that way, but in fact we all do, we really do. With this constitutional conference and the possibility of an amendment, we have a chance to start putting things right and we have a chance to stop doing things for native people or even to allow native people to do things for themselves. We have a chance actually to operate as partners, equals, their leaders and the leaders of the white community, to make a community that is good for all of us and that allows all of us to reach our potential. It is not going to be easy, but I am optimistic and I am looking forward to it.

This government could look provincially at the problem of status people off a reserve and deal with a couple of issues. We have had some problems with the Ministry of Revenue and the whole question of the eligibility of status Indian people for paying taxes and the question of whether the Indian Act, archaic as that piece of legislation is, does protect the treaty right of treaty Indians not to pay tax if they do not live on the reserve. There is even some question about whether or not they should have to pay something like sales tax if they live on the reserve. That has sort of been worked out with an ad hoc approach, so that basically they are not having to pay the tax. There are some problems with cigarettes, but let us not get into that.

The question still remains: what about the treaty Indian who believes he or she has treaty rights but does not live on the reserve? If it is complicated now, it is going to be even more complicated with self-government and recognizing who is a member of a band and who is not.

I do not suppose we can resolve these questions here today, but those are some of the kinds of issues that are going to have to be dealt with when we do reach the point of recognizing aboriginal self-government in this country and in this province. It is something I am particularly interested in, but I know most members of the House share an interest, whether or not they have many native people in their ridings. It is something that is of importance not only to the Indian community, and the Metis and nonstatus Indian community, but also to all of us as people who believe in fairness and equity in our society.

1550

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure I can add much to the remarks of the honourable member. I thank him for his eloquent speech. He makes the impassioned plea as a committed democrat not to be too harsh if, after we turn over responsibilities, people make mistakes. I think his point is well taken. If one believes in people's right to self-determination, one has to believe in their right to enjoy the fruits of that success or to fail as well. I very much respect what the member has said.

Some of my best friends in this House have made mistakes along the way. Does anyone find me critical? I am very supportive. I am sympathetic when my friends turn too far to the left or too far to the right and could not keep true on that path that we think is important on this side of the House, but that is a reality as well.

I will keep my friend's words in mind, but I do not think I can add anything at all to his eloquent speech.

Mr. McFadden: I have two or three questions of the Premier. One matter is a follow-up to the estimates of a few weeks ago. Has he managed to secure information as to the amount of money the province currently has allocated in terms of representations in Washington?

As he will recall, during the last estimates we talked about the potential desirability of having an office or some kind of ongoing presence in Washington. Given the fact that we do not now have that representation, would the Premier now have the figures, which he said he would be able to provide to us, concerning the amount we are currently spending on whatever representation we are making in Washington in all the various issues related to Canada-US trade and all other matters to do with pollution and so on involving Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To answer the member's questions specifically, divided by ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in 1986-87 retained the firm AgriWashington on a fee-for-service basis to provide information and advice on US agricultural policy, for a total of US$13,726 to date.

The Ministry of Energy no longer retains an information agent in Washington; however, Ontario Hydro retained the Washington-based law firm of Kirby, Gillick, Schwartz and Tuohey to provide information and advice on US energy policy for the calendar year 1986 at a cost of US$65,000. Hydro is currently negotiating a contract for legal service in 1987. Hydro also retains the services of Mahalley and Associates to provide information and advice on new business ventures, particularly in the Middle East via the sale of technology, provision of training, etc., via Canadian International Development Agency programs and World Bank funding.

The Ministry of the Environment retained the firm of Wellford, Wegman, Krulwich and Hoff from August 1985 to March 31, 1986, to provide regular reports and advice on US policy on acid rain, Superfund and the Clean Water Act. The total cost was approximately US$60,000 from April 1, 1986, to the present. Environment has spent approximately US$30,000 for services provided by Wellford, Wegman, Krulwich and Hoff.

The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology retained the firm of Dow, Lohnes and Albertson from September 1, 1985, to September 30, 1986, at a cost of US$36,000. In November 1985, the cost of the contract was increased by US$6,000 for a total annual cost of US$42,000. However, the contract was cancelled July 23, 1986, after a total expenditure of US$35,000. The firm provided MITT with advice and information on access to the US market and on US legislative initiatives that could affect the export of Ontario goods and services. MITT also retained Blake, Cassels and Graydon in Toronto and Hogan and Hartson, Washington, to provide general advice and information on US initiatives related to Canada-US trade activities. The legal fees incurred for the 1986 calendar year are: Blake, Cassels and Graydon, $59,000; Hogan and Hartson, US$39,300.

To the best of my knowledge, that is all that is there. It was particularly helpful to me in the last case when we were talking about the softwood lumber issue, which the member will know is a very complicated issue. I feel we were well served in that regard, in that I was personally quite involved in those discussions.

If I may, I will respond to the member's general question about representation in Washington and should this add up to necessity for some kind of an office in Washington. Again, I say to the member, nothing much has changed, although there have been more discussions lately, and I was recently there. It is an interesting thing to me that we do have representation in London, England, a capital; we have it in Paris, a capital; in Tokyo, a capital; but in the wisdom of the federal government, we should not do so in Washington. They are concerned about mixing the message or having a variety of people to play with there, or confusion or diminution of their authority or something. Anyway, the bureaucratic advice going to the minister is that there should not be provincial presences there.

The member knows my view on the situation. If he does not, I will tell him. I think we should do something there, but I say very frankly, in spite of what the member may have read in the newspaper today -- land I am not interested in causing unnecessarily a diplomatic fuss with Ottawa -- I think they are wrong on the matter. I do not think it would hurt anything, but they feel very strongly about it.

As the member knows, we have an ambassador there in whom I have great confidence -- I think he is very capable -- and an embassy that serves us all well, but they have a different master than we do, the federal government, which is understandable. There is a wide range of issues, including these ones and the trade ones I said I think are more severe, where we could use extra help. We have had some discussions with the federal government with respect to some kind of role, perhaps in the embassy, on a priority basis of getting information back. We were talking about one provincial member who would serve all 10 provinces. I do not like any of the solutions I hear so far.

I say to the member that if we wanted to, we could go and plunk an office in Washington tomorrow morning. They could not throw us out; it is still probably a free country. That would create a battle with the embassy. The embassy would come and say, "Please do not talk to those people," and run around and scurry for turf on the instructions of the Department of External Affairs. It is not the kind of fight I like to fight, very frankly.

We are just continuing to talk. I would be very grateful if the member would take advantage of his prestigious position in the Conservative Party, not only of Ontario but also of Canada, and speak to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister and all his other close friends and associates in Ottawa, and persuade them we are really not trying to threaten their turf, we are not interested in doing the same things they are doing, but we are interested in maintaining and protecting our interests in Washington, which are very grave.

It is my view that we do have a responsibility to take our message to Washington. The member has some ideas. I guess he thinks all the members should go down and carry the can, and certainly it is all right with me. If he wants to go and talk to anybody he knows down there and tell them anything he wants to tell them, it is okay with me, because I think we have a responsibility to know them better and for them to know us better and to accentuate the positive rather than the negative things in our relationship.

That is the current status of discussion. At the moment, it is stalled in neutral, but I am sure my honourable friend, in his conversation with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, can break the logjam and allow Ontario to put in a diplomatic listening post in Washington. It would be constructive in all of our interests.

Mr. McFadden: This is certainly an area in which the Premier and I agree. I think there is probably all-party agreement in this House that we should establish diplomatic representation -- pardon me, I had better correct that or I really will create a problem -- some form of effective representation in Washington, separate perhaps from the various legal firms and lobbyists who have been retained over the years.

For some reason, as the Premier has noted, successive federal governments over the years have been resistant to any province establishing a presence in Washington. It seems to me, though, that given the level of dependence of Canada on the American market, which is far in excess of what it has ever been historically, and given the current rise in protectionist feeling and the rising concern about the trade deficit in the United States, the time could not be more appropriate for us to show an initiative, in terms of not just Ontario but, I would suggest, perhaps the other provinces.

I cannot speak for them. I agree with the Premier, though: I do not see any real merit in having one spokesman speaking for all the provinces. It seems to me it would take more than the wisdom of Solomon to pull off that role. It would make good sense for us, as a province, to push to have somebody there to speak for Ontario's particular interests on commercial matters. We are not trying to establish diplomatic recognition there; we are trying to establish a commercial presence to deal with commercial matters.

1600

I would hope we could make arrangements that would be generally acceptable to the federal government. Given the current state of negotiations with the Americans, I do not think we want to create an uproar. I do not think, though, that it would hurt at this stage for Ontario to take a pretty strong stand in terms of the need to have representation in Washington. I do not think it has received much profile at this time. Perhaps it would not hurt for Ontario to take a stronger stand and perhaps a more public stand in terms of wanting an office there.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Can I respond to that?

Mr. McFadden: Sure.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member's advice. I do not know; I could hoot and holler more. They certainly know my views. There have been a number of discussions with everyone in Ottawa. I can hoot and holler about it. I can make a strong speech here or the member can help me out, but I can tell him that at the moment they are giving advice that we should not do it.

The question is, should I make this an area of controversy between the federal government and myself? Good God, they are writing back now giving me heck about arranging dates for meetings. He can see how this thing has descended in a kind of petty way. I am not happy about the situation. We have some very serious differences of opinion with the federal government on international banking centres, trade matters, softwood and other things. Frankly, I am not one of these people who is going out looking for things to fight about. I am trying to minimize the things to fight about. This would unnecessarily aggravate a situation that frankly is not all that good at the moment.

The member can see that if Mr. Mazankowski chooses to fight about when the date of a meeting is, they are looking for anything to fight about.

Mr. Runciman: You would never do that, would you? You are above that sort of thing.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: They may think I am doing it. They may think it is tit for tat. They may want to retaliate in some way or other. I am not very happy about it, very frankly, but that is life. This thing could be read as an aggrieved assault on the federal authority.

I would be grateful if the member would use his good offices and ask his leader to use his good offices. I know he is very close to the Prime Minister; he frequently shares a platform with him and shares a number of his views. He is similar in many ways. Perhaps he will put that view to the federal government and put it to his colleagues that it is in our interest to do that; indeed, it does not in any way detract from Ottawa's interests. The argument the member can use is: "We are doing it in London, England, and we are doing it in Paris. At the federal government's request, Ontario put an office in Brussels. What is the big harm with Washington?" For some reason it is a strange piece of turf; perhaps it is too close.

I should tell the member that we intend to beef up our New York office to give better service in that regard, even though it is not easy to do it. We have a new agent general there who is a very respected businessman and I think is knowledgeable in the ways of New York. He has spent some time there before and I think can be helpful in that regard.

One other point: The member is familiar with the things Quebec did in Washington at one point. They actually bootlegged a person in there. It is quite common knowledge. They have a person who lives in New York who flies to Washington every week, who lives in a hotel but does not take up permanent residence, maintaining the ruse that no one is in Washington even though they have an office there. It was supposedly for tourism. One can see that they have accommodated and juggled around to try to avoid the appearance of a problem somehow or other.

The problem is squarely in the hands of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I cannot tell the member the number of times I have talked to him in the last six months, and many of his staff and everybody else. The bureaucrats are telling him not to do it for some reason. Can I ask the member and can I count on him to write to him immediately, getting the support of his leader, so as to put forward the position of Ontario in that regard? Will he send me a copy of that letter'?

Mr. McFadden: Our concern about that is well known. We have raised it on the committee that investigated it, the select committee on economic affairs, and we made our opinion on that well known. I will speak to my leader, but I have no doubt that we would be quite prepared to write to Ottawa to express that view, to reiterate our current position on that, which is of some months' standing, and we will be happy to provide the Premier with a copy of that letter as well.

A matter that the Premier did raise which I would like to discuss briefly in estimates concerns a recommendation that appeared in the report of the select committee on economic affairs, which I raised in the House last week. That was the potential role that a group of MPPs from this Legislature could have in smoothing out some of the irritants, some of the questions, some of the concerns with legislators in the US.

The select committee specifically recommended, after spending some 15 months of work and after visiting Washington on two separate occasions for close to a week, that it would be useful from Ontario's point of view, and probably from Canada's point of view, to have an exchange of visits with both American and Canadian legislators. The current situation would indicate that there is perhaps even a greater need for that kind of exchange than there was back when we were working on a report last September.

I know that on several different occasions I have met with congressmen and senators from the US whose knowledge of Ontario was modest, to say the least, who were not aware of the depth of the trading relationship between Canada and the US and who were certainly not aware of the importance of the Canadian market to their individual state.

I know, for example, there was a congressman who actually visited this House back in August from the state of West Virginia. He was up here to look at trade matters as well as at the whole issue of acid rain. He came here under the misapprehension that there was a trade deficit, as far as his state was concerned, between Canada and the US. What we found in our discussions with him was that in fact the situation was the reverse: West Virginia exported more to Ontario than we exported to West Virginia. Subsequently, I visited with him as part of a Canadian parliamentary delegation in Washington, and he said his view on the Canada-US trading relationship had changed considerably as a consequence of the information he had been able to secure in his visit here and in subsequent research.

When the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), a member of the Liberal caucus, and I visited Washington as part of a Canadian parliamentary delegation in September, we had the opportunity to meet with a number of members of Congress and with staff coming from the Northeast-Midwest Coalition. This coalition consists of 125 or 130 senators and congressman, as the Premier is probably well aware. That group had never officially met with anybody from this House; in fact, it had met with virtually nobody from Canada whatsoever. At the end of the discussions, it strongly recommended that it would be desirable to follow up that meeting with some structured exchanges of visits between Ontario and American congressmen and senators dealing with trade issues of particular interest to the northeastern and midwestern states, our immediate neighbours.

I also found in other discussions that Americans were generally receptive to meeting with us and talking on an individual basis on political and economic matters. I think that kind of representation is often more effective than a representation by a paid lobbyist. When I am sitting here and a lobbyist or a lawyer comes in to me representing the vested interests of a particular concern, I know he is there on retainer and he is paid to say roughly what he is there to say.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: You used to be a lawyer, did you not?

Mr. McFadden: Yes, I was a lawyer, and so was the Premier.

The thing that has struck me in my discussions with the Americans is that, in having two elected people who have a common interest in terms of their constituencies and their knowledge of the legislative process and the complexities of that get together, often the kind of exchange you can get is more meaningful than if it is strictly between a lobbyist and a legislator.

1610

In my remarks last week I did urge that the government should give consideration over the next month or two to having a committee of this Legislature or a representative group of MPPs from all parties go down in a structured way, particularly to meet members of the House of Representatives and to talk with them about the Canada-US relationship and the need for the Americans to be very careful before they proceed ahead with the kind of protectionist legislation they are threatening to go ahead with in the House of Representatives in the next two months.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is that with or without per diems?

Mr. McFadden: The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) raises per diems. In my view, per diems are totally irrelevant. I am happy to go down without a per diem, and I am sure other members will be if it is of importance and will benefit Ontario.

I ask the Premier whether he will consider acting upon the recommendation of the select committee, and the finding of the member for Kitchener and myself in terms of meetings we had in Washington, to look into the feasibility of acting on a visit by representatives of this Legislature to congressmen in the US who will be directly involved in the consideration, in the next couple of months, of the omnibus trade bill coming before the House ways and means committee and eventually to the floor of the House of Representatives.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member makes a number of suggestions. Honestly, I have an open mind to these things, but I will give him my reaction to the situation.

I am all in favour of all of us doing more to take Ontario's message not just to the US but also to our neighbouring provinces or any other place. We have a lot of associations that do that kind of thing, such as Commonwealth and parliamentary associations, where a number of our colleagues get together. Then there are all sorts of federal-provincial and interprovincial meetings where people get together and share points of view. Certainly the ministers do a lot of that, but the back-benchers do a lot of that as well.

In general terms, I favour those informal contacts that go on. The more we can educate each other, not only on a bilateral basis but also on a multilateral basis, about our own concerns, country, feelings and sensitivities, then I guess the more the world becomes a little smaller and a littler stronger as a result of that. In general terms, I have no problem with that.

With respect to Washington, I do not want to mislead anybody about this situation. Back-benchers are not going to get the same access ministers and Premiers do. One of the other things one has to be concerned about is that everybody is on the same wavelength. When I am in Washington I always go out of my way not to embarrass the federal government. Some of the member's colleagues might want to make fun of me about that, and some think I should go down there and cause a fuss about the federal government, but I do not do that. I do not do it in Washington, China or Seoul, Korea, and I never will.

It is important when we are abroad that we speak with one voice, and if one cannot get one's voice on the same wavelength, then one should keep it quiet for a while and come back and make a speech against one's colleagues. In broad terms, that is one of the understandings the people who represent Ontario in that regard should have. One of the things that does happen, by and large, when we have committees such as the select committee on economic affairs, which was ably chaired by my colleague the member for Kitchener and had the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) and others among its membership, is that they do tend to function in a nonpartisan way, which is good and constructive and the way they should function.

The question is, how do you set that up? Do we have a special committee that just travels from here and goes down and states our message? If so, what? Is it our message on acid rain, on trade, on labour matters, on transboundary pollution or whatever? I do not know. It may be better to do it the way the previous government did it and take a select committee dealing with particular issues, and if the member wants to resurrect that committee and take the group down to talk about trade issues, that is fair enough. There are a lot of things going on in the trade issues that ordinary members may not always be aware of. Some of them are very sensitive. Some are behind the scenes, and sometimes these things are not always shared with us by the federal government or the industry, let alone being capable of being shared with other parties.

We must not be naïve about what we expect of the situation. Ontario is seen by a number of people in high office, because of the importance they place on it, be they members of the administration and cabinet or senior members of Congress, just as Ontario is granted official status in Tokyo, Beijing and Seoul. That is rare, if unheard of, for a provincial delegation, but to be treated that way is a measure of the respect in which this province is held. It is important not only in Confederation but in international terms as well. That is something we have to guard very carefully and make sure we do not abuse whatever little influence we have.

I suggest to the honourable member -- and I know he has spoken on the subject before -- that if he wants to resurrect the committee, travel and talk to other congressmen and senators, that is fair enough. The problem is that, apart from educating each other, the committee is not in a position to speak with any particular authority behind its voice. In a sense, that diminishes its voice and at the same time it diminishes the number of people who will want to listen to the committee. There are some people who just like to shoot the breeze; other people like to talk to people who are in a position to make things happen.

The other thing I know the honourable member understands, but which bears repeating in this House, is that our systems are so phenomenally different in Canada from what they are in the US. In the US, the system is more important than any one individual. The locus of responsibility is so highly diffused through committees and so much is brokered up and down the system that you do not talk to just one person; you talk to a great number of people. Of course, that reinforces the member's point that the more people talk, the better off we will be, and I gratefully acknowledge that, but it is a hard system to get a handle on. It is not talking to just one person. I think the member knows that. Anybody who oversimplifies what goes on there makes a very great mistake. We have to talk to more people as best we can to try to get the centre of responsibility.

It is a huge sausage machine in the US. When it starts, you never know what is going to come out. I get attacked because John Heinz is going to introduce a bill, but he has introduced many other bills before and they have never seen the light of day. There are hundreds of protectionist pieces of legislation on the floor of the Congress, and they never reach the light of day. The member may want to educate his leader about the nature of the system in the US when he stands up and hoots and hollers about things. I think he understands very little and gets quite exercised. The member may want to explain how the system works and make sure he presents how these issues really result in a fair-minded and rational way. Our system is quite different. If the government adopts a position, it is much more likely that it will become the law of the land, and of course we can move much faster than they can.

If the honourable member would like to suggest to his colleagues in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs that they should do another trip to Washington and talk to their colleagues, contacts or personal friends, I will certainly arrange for briefings for that committee from everyone he thinks would be helpful to bring him up to speed on what is going on. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is already salivating. I can see that glint in his eye. He can go down there and talk to whomever he likes and express his point of view. I am sure the embassy will be helpful, as well as his own contacts.

I do not have any particular problem with the general education. I do not think he should delude himself about the efficacy it will have in solving the great problems of the day.

1620

Mr. McFadden: If I could deal with one final area, I agree with the Premier that going to Washington will not change the course of history. The major function any group would have is educative, but it seems to me at this stage, based on my experience in dealing with congressmen and senators, that we have a huge educative function to deal with.

It seems to me that the American system is far more responsive than our system to the kind of visit and the kind of education that I am recommending and that the select committee on economic affairs recommended. In our system, the government of the day really sets the agenda; the government of the day decides what is going to happen with legislation and what gets on the order paper. In the American system, it is individual congressmen and senators who can have a pretty fundamental effect on whether a bill ever gets out of committee, whether it gets on to the floor of the Senate or the House and whether it ever gets adopted.

I would like to suggest to the Premier that establishing links, establishing bonds, establishing trust and establishing communication with American legislators can be vital. I would suggest it is probably more vital in the US to establish links with American legislators than it is for them to establish links with us, because of our system of parliamentary democracy, which does not allow for the same kind of independence of action and initiative that the American system allows.

The final area I would like to deal with is the impact that the proposed legislation now under consideration by the House of Representatives might have on Ontario. As the Premier is undoubtedly aware, the House ways and means committee will be involved with considering and marking up a new trade act in late February and in March for submission to the House of Representatives. It is my understanding that the new trade act will be at least as protectionist as the trade act that was adopted by the House of Representatives in the last session of Congress.

Senator Bentsen, as the Premier will be aware, has stated that, in his view, a priority of this session of Congress is to get through a veto-proof trade act, which very clearly is aimed at protecting the American market and will undoubtedly have a prejudicial effect on Ontario's exports to the US and, in the end, a prejudicial effect on jobs in this province. I wonder whether the Premier can share with the House any information he was able to secure during his visit as to the kinds of measures we could expect in the omnibus trade act that is before the House ways and means committee right now and will be going before Congress in the next couple of months.

I would raise with the Premier a matter that concerns me, which I raised in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. The Ministry of Treasury and Economics published Economic and Fiscal Review, Province of Ontario in November 1986. On page 25 of that review, under "Medium-Term Outlook: 1988-1990," the overview specifically said that "significant increases in US protectionism will be avoided." In fact, in reviewing the medium-term prospects for the Ontario economy, it seemed that no protectionist legislation, effectively, would go through Congress at all.

I asked the chief economist for Ontario whether any research had been done on the trade acts and whether extrapolations from there had been made of the effect that the passage of even the trade act last year might have on the Ontario economy in terms of developing models for the economy. The chief economist of Ontario said no.

We know the Congress is now considering further trade legislation. We know it is likely to have some effect on the Ontario economy. I was surprised, quite frankly, that in making projections for the Ontario economy and talking about job gains, job losses, growth and everything else, all kinds of factors were put into developing the model, but one key fact was left out altogether --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Which of the 600 bills would you have put in?

Mr. McFadden: No. There was one omnibus trade act that was passed by the House of Representatives last year. I have a copy of it in my office. It is a lengthy bill. It covers a whole range. I am not talking about picking up miscellaneous trade bills brought in by various congressmen and senators. What I am talking about is the omnibus trade act that was brought in last year and passed by the House of Representatives.

The House of Representatives is again intending --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It did not go through the Senate.

Mr. McFadden: No, it did not go through the Senate. I know that. The House of Representatives is now proposing to pass another trade act that the chairman of the Senate finance committee has indicated the Senate would look on favourably. His hope is that somehow between the two Houses they will pass a veto-proof bill.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Why get alarmist?

Mr. McFadden: The Premier asks why be alarmist. The fact was that a year ago, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology produced an alarmist study of the number of jobs that might be sensitive if there were some form of free trade agreement between Canada and the US.

That study was done when there was no agreement, when we had no idea what would be contained in the agreement, when we had no idea what adjustments might have been provided for in the agreement, what industries could be impacted on or anything else. Industry, Trade and Technology was able to come up with a study that projected that two hundred and some odd thousand jobs could be sensitive. I find it amazing that those figures could be created when no agreement had been negotiated, when the negotiations had hardly even started.

Here we have a situation where the House of Representatives passed a trade act and could very well pass another trade act this spring which would go to the Senate, be agreed on between the House and the Senate in conference and even wind up being veto-proof, yet for some reason this is not taken into account.

I should tell the Premier that the chief economist did agree that was a matter the province should look at. The chief economist indicated to the committee that he would in fact have his staff start looking at impacts that this kind of major trade act could have.

I am not saying that any model that could be created by the chief economist or the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) could be definitive and tell us exactly down to the job what could be at stake. My point was basically this: How can we judge the appropriate policy and the appropriate reaction for Ontario if we have not done our homework in terms of judging the impact a particular act might have'? It is not an exact science, but surely that is an area that could be investigated.

There are basically two questions I have for the Premier. First, does he have any information as to what we could expect in the new omnibus trade act; will it be the same as the one that was passed by the House of Representatives last year, or does he expect it will be substantially different? Second, would he at least indicate whether he would expect that the province would undertake, on a fairly urgent basis, a review of the impact that legislation could have on Ontario when the terms of the new omnibus trade act are in fact known in the next month or two?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I talked to a great number of people and they all have different views on the subject, so which one would the member like me to quote to him? I cannot tell him any more than he or anyone or even they can, what the shape of this new legislation will be. As the member knows, it goes through the system where everybody tacks on his own amendments, be it for steel, softwood, hydroelectricity or whatever, and who knows what is going to happen in the whole thing?

I think we are going to see an act. I think there is enough juice there behind it. With the disturbing chats I had with Senator Bentsen and others, people of sufficient heft and weight in the House, I think that they are going to bring something forward. In broad terms, the passage will probably accelerate the use of administrative remedies on trade and take some of the discretion away from the administration.

I think we are probably going to see more co-operation between the House and the administration in the bill. I think we are going to see it.

Even if we saw that bill as the law of the land, we could not make any predictions of how that would affect specific trade groups because they would have to be attacked through that bill. It may or may not come out in groups; it probably will not. Even then it would take the wisdom of Solomon, and we would be wrong to run a computer model and say, "That will cost us so many jobs," but it will tighten up the system, as I see it.

1630

The member asked me who I talked to. One of the most interesting conversations I had was with Senator Patrick Daniel Moynihan. I asked him what was happening and he said, "You have to understand that six years ago the Republicans stole the flag from the Democrats and they are going to get it back through trade." He went on to use some very picturesque language to describe what was going on in the US. He is a very insightful and brilliant man.

The big question yet to be determined is how the Democrats will rally around this issue, who will come forward as their presidential nominee and whether he will use this issue to rally around. There is a variety of different opinions on that question. The strength of the administration in resisting this is still not known; in other words, the bill could be vetoed. However, that depends on how strong the President is at that time. At the moment he has been weakened a little bit.

This is a politically supercharged event and there is no one, with the possible exception of some of the bright lights in the member's party here, who understands what is going on in Washington and how it will come out of the mill. We can make our best guess at it but there is nobody there who is betting any money about what will happen, how it will happen or within what time frame.

I said to the member, in general terms, I think there will be some kind of bill. How strong or watered down it will be I do not know. At the same time, there is no particular desire to hurt Canada in any way. There is a general friendly sense about us to the extent that we are acknowledged at all. Just because there is an omnibus trade bill does not mean we are going to be hit with anything; we may or may not be. It depends on which lobby groups start to accelerate the action in the US.

It also depends on the price of the Canadian dollar, which I gather hit 75 cents today. It has been crawling up and taking some pressure off. That has other ill effects on our economy, as my honourable friend will know. It depends on the price of the US dollar, on the pressure on the merchandise trade deficit and who they are going to hit next. I say in humility to my honourable friend, I am not smart enough to predict; I say with some insight into his character, he is not smart enough to predict, nor is anybody else smart enough to predict, what is going to happen.

The case I took to Washington was: "Canada is a fair trader. You can attack us on the steel question, but we are not subsidizing in any way and we should be viewed as a different situation from Taiwan." One of the problems in the steel question today is the sense that there may be some diversion from some of the Pacific Rim countries through Canada into the US market. That is a real problem for us at the moment. We are trying to persuade the legislators there that we are good friends and honourable traders and that we should not be hit by any of this legislation specially designed to cure certain problems.

The other thing I point out is that people are now much more aware than they were in the past that we are running a large merchandise trade surplus with the US. It was $20 billion or so last year, probably down to $13 billion or $14 billion this year. I point out to them, as I point out to the member, that we have a netting out on the service account; because of the dividend flow, royalties and others, it brings the situation far more net. I remind them of all the Canadians who go to Florida. It would be a great mistake to want to jeopardize these relationships. We have very integrated economies now. Whether the member likes it or not, we do, with cross-ownership in a number of resource areas.

I also point out that in the steel area, for every dollar we export to the US, we spent $1.26 in the US. There are certain equities. To a guy such as John Heinz, who is singular minded and wearing blinders on the issue, that does not cut any ice. He has his constituency. He acknowledges that the industry is not competitive. He says that the business is close to bankruptcy. They are laying off people in jobs in his home state and other states in the steel caucus. He does not care; he is just going to protect that industry.

They are perverting US trade law to protect an uncompetitive industry, and that is what the issue is about. What bothers me are his reinterpretations, not only of fair international trade law but also of bilateral trade law and domestic trade law, to engage in raw protectionism.

There is no subsidy. I can tell members there was no subsidy in the softwood lumber either, but they deemed there to be a subsidy, because subsidy is in the eye of the beholder, and therein is the problem. They deemed there to be a subsidy just because they changed their minds about what a subsidy is and that was a direct response to political pressure in the US.

My view is that we have a much better job to do explaining our position. That is why I was in the US. I have been there before and I will go again. It is not that I particularly enjoy it, I want to tell my honourable friend, but we all have a responsibility, particularly the Premiers and the federal cabinet ministers. If my friend wants to participate, I am delighted.

There are many levels at which we can take our stories. We have to rally our friends; we have to co-ordinate our message in a thoughtful way. The member spoke eloquently about the lack of general knowledge about Canada, and he is right. The more we can elevate that, the more we can explain each other to each other, then I think we have a better chance of getting through this difficult period.

There are some thoughtful observers. I may be telling members more than they want to hear. If they are tired of me speaking, they should tell me to sit down.

There are some thoughtful observers who see what is happening now in historical terms. The only real period of open trade in history was after the Second World War; that was one of the major economic expansions in the world. Now we have a US economy, the greatest market, the greatest industrial engine in the world, that is running out of gas a little bit, is less competitive than it used to be. The response to that decline, in relation to other countries that are growing quickly at the present time, is to protect what they have -- which is a trip in nostalgia to the past, not a trip to the future -- rather than deal with the gut questions of their competitors.

That is what worries me as well in this country and it is one of the reasons I have said, "Let us not put on blinders and hitch our wagon exclusively to the US." Yes, it is the biggest market; yes, it is our greatest trading partner, and yes, those relationships are important. But it is only a small part of the world and we have to look at the faster-growing areas; we have to broaden our own horizons. This world is becoming too small just to hitch ourselves to a country that has its own domestic problems and its own agenda.

They do not care much about us. They consider their problems 10 times bigger than ours and they are not going to go very far out of their way for us. If we invest all our eggs in one basket economically, I think history will say we have all been very shortsighted.

Mr. Runciman: It sounds like an old Pierre Trudeau speech; the north-south option.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is not the north-south option; it is the third option. The member has read the wrong speech, but it was a good try.

That is why one of the things we are doing in specific terms is with the Pacific Rim and other things. The gains we will make will be incremental. There is no easy answer to these questions. It is going to take dedicated leadership over the long term.

The problem with this whole process is that it tends to be events-driven, as members know, and if the politician does not have a ribbon to snip tomorrow, he considers his life to be a failure. But I think it is going to take a very clear view of where this world is moving, how it is moving and the role we should play, and then provide the leadership to the public and private sectors to bring that off.

I have shared with the members, at least in a preliminary way, my sense of what we have to do and of the kind of big job we have ahead of us. It is not going to be easy. If we do not deal with these questions, we are going to see the slow diminution of the standard of living and the things that we think are so important in this province.

I think the relationship with the US is extremely important. I think the member's ideas are constructive. I do not think they are as constructive as he probably thinks they are, but they are better than nothing.

I told him that I take an existentialistic view of the situation. I believe in the nobility of struggle, so if the member can find anybody to listen to him, talk to him. I do not know who he is, but talk to him. Explain our point of view. Maybe we all have to take that responsibility. At the same time, we are going to have to focus our attention as a nation on our ability to compete, and hitching our wagon to that one pony is not going to solve all our economic problems.

I have probably told the member more than he wanted to hear, but he should not have provoked me.

Mr. Mackenzie: In the few minutes we have left, I am wondering whether the Premier could share his observations with us. I have a couple of questions. I will start first with the Senator Heinz initiatives, or whatever the heck you want to call them, and whether the feeling or view the Premier picked up on his recent trip to Washington was that we are likely to see voluntary cutbacks or that we are likely to be faced with a more stringent call than that in terms of the steel industry.

1640

Does the Premier know whether there are currently in place efforts to do the kind of selling and lobbying job that was done when we last faced the threat a couple of years back? As I understand it from conversations we have had with steel people and others in committee and outside committee, one of the things that saved our bacon in terms of steel cutbacks and shipments was that we were able to prove at that time that $1.25 was coming into Canada for every buck of finished steel we were sending into the US. The Premier says it is now $1.26. They told us in Washington, on the last trip we had with the select committee, it was $1.29. That, of course, could vary slightly.

It seems to me that was the weight of the argument. They were able to prove to some of the senators and congressmen in states that would suffer as a result that they stood to lose more than they would gain by this kind of action. I wonder whether the Premier can tell us his own perception or feeling as a result of his talks down there and what we are likely to be facing.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The short answer is that I do not know, but I will tell him the play as I understand it.

The honourable member is quite right. When you talk to someone like John Heinz, all he talks about is steel, but if you talk to someone from an automotive state all he talks about is autos, and if you talk to somebody from Louisiana he does not care about auto or steel; he cares about the depressed oil industry. It is a country of special interests.

Just because one guy in the US stands up and says it, does not mean it is going to happen. Thank God that is the case, because you hear some pretty tough-minded stuff. It is a question of how they broker all their interests. The member is very knowledgeable about this situation. I will go back and add a little to the things he has said.

We have gone through this before and have done so for a long period of time. There was a major discussion in 1984. In 1984, the US brought in laws that brought in a VRA, a voluntary restraint agreement. They have been forced on every other country in the world except Canada. If my numbers are a little off, I hope the member will excuse me; I am going by memory. At that point, foreign steel was taking about 33 per cent of the US market. They brought in the VRAs and that meant that each producing country, Sweden, Taiwan, Korea and others, had to sign these agreements to bring its share down to a certain level.

It has been quite successful. They have actually brought it down about 10 per cent. They are aiming for about the 20 per cent level. They are about three per cent off in that regard. All the while, the US steel industry is deemed by most people to be uncompetitive. Shutting down the mills, sponsoring Bruce Springsteen, a lot of other things that are happening are part of an uncompetitive kind of economy. My honourable friend will be familiar with things that are happening there that are not dissimilar to some of the things that are happening here. We have to ask whether we can protect ourselves against these kinds of things. Anyway, they did it.

Canada got out of the situation for the arguments my friend made and for other arguments; that the economies were integrated, that there was reciprocity back and forth between the two countries with respect to the steel trade and they should not hit us. We escaped. During part of that period, Canada was running at about 2.4 per cent of the total US market. One percentage point is about one million tons, as I recall the numbers. Then we popped up a little bit and the pressure started to come. It got up to three per cent; then it got up to 3.5 per cent and pressure came from the US to cut back Canada's share of steel.

There was voluntary restraint on this side of the border by the steel executives. That voluntary self-discipline is not to be confused with the VRAs. It was not a legislated VRA. It was self-discipline exercised by the industry. The industry is extremely knowledgeable about this situation. It spends great amounts of money in Washington, with counsel and lobbyists and God knows what else to tell it how to manage this difficult political situation, mindful of the fact that people like John Heinz and others are going to whack them if they do not behave.

It was in a state of limbo or a standoff for a long period of time. Unfortunately, in the last two or three months, exports shot right up and we were in the five per cent range of domestic market. That is in a declining market as well, because steel is being used less for automobiles and a lot of other things.

The Canadian industry would argue that is because of the USX strike and there was demand there, it had to be filled; that was not wholesale, brokered steel, that was steel that went right in to customers to meet the exact demand, and there are exceptions to that policy. This, of course, gets the lights flashing in the US and everybody says, "Canada is cheating again and we have to bring it under these VRAs we proposed for the other countries."

Hence, Heinz had his bill. He has had several bills on the subject, but he is going to introduce his bill again. I was very happy to read a couple of days ago that he is going to delay the implementation of that. I would not stand up in this House and say I was responsible for getting him to delay the implementation of that, I would never be so presumptuous, but I do know he has said he is going to delay the implementation, hopeful that the Canadian industry can, on a voluntary basis, work the system out.

There are some other allegations being made that I believe have to be monitored. One is that some Pacific Rim countries are diverting steel through Canada, through a particular distributor in Vancouver. I will not mention his or her name, whoever it could possibly be, but it is serious. I believe the federal government has got to monitor this situation very closely. I am sure members would agree with me, it is damned foolish to get hit with a bill or a VRA for steel that is not even our steel, it is being diverted through our country, so we have to be far more tough-minded about this situation.

I am told Mr. Heinz's bill is going to be introduced tomorrow in the Senate, but the implementation will be delayed.

I said at the beginning I do not know what is going to happen and I still do not know what is going to happen. I know it is one of those issues, like so many issues in politics and in life, you have to manage properly. There is no real black or white. We have to keep the discussions going in the US. I do not believe for a second that we are subsidizing. I want to avoid at all costs any kind of a legislated solution, i.e., softwood lumber. I think that was a mistake and a most unfortunate precedent and has to be avoided at all costs.

Therefore, it is going to take management skill by the federal government and by the steel industry, and as members know, the big ones are quite knowledgeable about this one, but there are a lot of smaller ones that tend to be sneaking in and everybody tends to be blaming each other for causing the problem. I would like to see tougher monitoring by the federal government. I would like to see more self-discipline exercised, and I think with that tough-minded federal leadership, we can avoid the kind of problems that could possibly come along in this supercharged atmosphere.

I cannot prove to members I am right, because I may well be wrong. I am giving them the distillation of my best judgement, both from my experience in the US and my experience with the industry here. If the member has any better advice for me in this regard, I am most anxious to hear it, but I do not want this to develop.

It is like this auto pact business and the pressure developing on that. Sometimes these issues take a great deal of finesse and management politically on this side of the border. Essentially, the ball is in the court of the federal government. I can assure members of this House, as I have assured them, when they are using good judgement, they will have our complete support in this matter. We try to work on a co-operative basis. Unfortunately, there are times when we have very serious differences of opinion on approach, as we did in the softwood lumber case.

That, to the best of my knowledge, is the status at the moment. There is not a lot of solace in what I have told members, but I think if we are intelligent, if we are self-disciplined and if we all talk to each other a lot, it is possible to avoid the problem and that certainly should be the course of public policy in this nation.

1650

Mr. Mackenzie: In talking to each other, I am forced to refer to one comment my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) made, and that is the business of getting members together and having a chat with the various legislators. I would point out that some of the mess we are in is as a result of a face-to-face chat between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Reagan in Quebec City that at this stage of the game I wish had never happened.

I would like to tell the Premier this -- I think we are down to the last minute, so I do not have much time -- my perception of this free trade issue, apart from all of the other arguments, is that our real problem at the moment is that we have the talks in the wrong context. We have them in a fast-track, comprehensive, bilateral trade arrangement in which everything we know and everything that has happened to date seems to exacerbate the situation rather than improve it

Nobody can argue that we do not have to continue talking -- and I do not think anybody has -- but I think it is the context we are in and the kind of framework that we have that are really giving us the problem. I guess that is why I felt so strongly that we should put an end to this particular context; make it clear we are going to talk but not in this kind of time frame and tight schedule with the comprehensive nature of it.

Does the Premier have any comments at all on that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have 58 seconds to give the member all my wisdom.

Mr. Mackenzie: My colleague did not leave me much time. I will remember it next time.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I gather we are running into the estimates of the Lieutenant Governor, the Office of the Premier and the cabinet office. I am happy to continue this discussion with the members here or somehow to juggle them all together. I do not know what the procedure is but if it can be done, good.

Mr. McClellan: I would be very happy to have the discussion under the rubric of the next vote.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am happy the honourable member is comfortable with that.

Vote 301 agreed to.

Vote 302 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

On vote 501, Office of the Lieutenant Governor program:

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think it is most appropriate that we simply stand and say something nice about the Lieutenant Governor, pass his estimates and then go on to talk to the other matters.

Mr. McClellan: All right.

Mr. Sterling: Our party supports fully the efforts of our Lieutenant Governor. We think he has carried out his job in an exemplary fashion. Without further comment, we would indicate our willingness to pass these estimates forthwith.

Mr. Mackenzie: It will not take more than three or four minutes to put my concerns on the record. I started before we ended the last vote. A comment that struck home to me in our first Washington trip and in the committee was made by a colleague of ours who has now gone on to a different job. I am talking about Bob Elgie. I thought his comment was right on. He simply made the --

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Notwithstanding that there is really a free-ranging kind of discussion in the estimates, I would suggest to the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) that if he wants to continue to comment on free trade, he might do that in the next set of estimates, when he will have an opportunity to deal with that particular matter.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. I think we can help this along by taking the first vote, which is on the Lieutenant Governor. We all wish him well and know he has done a wonderful job. If we can pass that vote, then my colleague for Hamilton East would like to return to the matters that he raised under a different set of estimates. If you would assist us in the chair, we could get to that right now.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other members who wish to speak on the estimates of the Lieutenant Governor?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am proud to defend the Lieutenant Governor, who has become a very good friend in the last little while and in my opinion has brought great humanity to the Lieutenant Governor's office. I must say personally, it is a joy to work with him. I think he has done wonderful things for this province. I see that expansive smile and that generosity of heart wherever he exhibits himself publicly. He is a first-class representative for this province. We are all very proud of him.

Vote 501 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET OFFICE

On vote 601, Office of the Premier program; and vote 101, Cabinet Office program:

Mr. Mackenzie: I will not take long in case there are others who have comments they want to make, but it is on the same line. The reason the colleague I mentioned did not agree with the free trade initiative was that it was bound to highlight the irritants, which were going to cause us problems. I think his words were more than a little prophetic.

We do have a situation in terms of the trade talks where we agree that this country cannot afford to lose or have diluted the arrangements we currently have under the auto pact. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself made mention of the fact that we have a fair surplus, maybe down to $14 billion or $15 billion now. It has always been my understanding that the surplus was either in the service area the member is talking about or in resources; that the only area in which we had a real plus, in terms of value added industrial manufacturing, was in the auto pact. Of course, that is also the heavy job content, which is where we stand to lose.

We have an auto pact that almost everybody in the committee agrees, and I think the Premier himself agrees, should not be fooled around with. Indeed, in the early days of our hearings, and in our interim report, it was almost the consensus that this in itself was enough to scupper the talks. We now know clearly, whether we like it or not, that the auto pact is on the table. What will happen to it, whether we will lose it, I do not know, but we have the auto pact on the table.

We agreed early on that a certain number of the items should not be on the table. Agriculture is an area of great concern for Ontario, and agriculture is clearly on the table, whether we like it or not. It is pretty obvious that cultural and sovereignty issues are all going to be on the table as well.

We also have an example of how the irritants have turned into real problems in terms of the shakes and shingles issue, the 35 per cent tariff and our retaliation. The news stories, if the news stories are accurate, seem to indicate that maybe it was all a mistake, a mistake both ways, and that we should get out of it, as long of course as we are willing to sell our cedar logs.

Once again, in terms of the supply -- I am only going by a television story I watched with some interest the other evening. The United States has something like a 10-year supply of cedar logs for its industry, whereas we have better than a 100-year supply. If we can get rid of this arrangement we made and they can import the logs, everything will be well, but the lumber industry, particularly in British Columbia, is really screaming at that. This can hurt us even more than the 35 per cent tariff we ended up with. One has to wonder whether in exposing all of these irritants as a result of the talks, we were not euchred a little in more ways than one. It may have been a bit of subterfuge, even the whole shakes and shingles issue.

Coupled with that is the fact that everybody we in the committee talked to indicated that one problem we had in this country -- and it did not matter which side of the trade issue they were on, for or against the comprehensive free trade talks -- was that we had never developed a real industrial strategy. It has not been developed in this country, and as a result we really do not know what we want to do, even if it is being protectionist ourselves in terms of what is essential to us to keep operating in this country.

Without having that kind of policy, and with having all these key areas, such as agriculture and the auto pact, on the table, whether we like it or not, finally there was the clear indication from everybody we talked to in the US -- I do not know whether anybody has softened on this issue or not -- that if we did enter into an agreement, the one thing that is not agreeable, the one thing that should not be on the table no matter how far we are ready to move, is the countervail duty legislation in the US.

Without that -- I may be oversimplifying the case -- we have absolutely nothing. We can make any agreement we want, but if they do not give up that right to countervail, we will get hit somewhere down the road. I guess it is in that kind of a context that I raise again the question I raised just before the end of the last estimates. It seems that the bind we are in is this forum that the federal government has chosen: comprehensive, bilateral trade negotiations and the fast-track approach. As much as we are facing threats from protectionist legislation in the US, I do not know how we can ever stay on this track and with this kind of format and not be the losers.

1700

I do not have all the answers going the other way, although I do think there is a heck of a lot of merit in trying to diversify our trade and taking another look at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I know the difficulties we have had with that up until now. I do not think you can argue against the idea at some stage -- I suppose this could be deemed to be protectionism on our own part -- of content legislation. If there is anything we are going to protect, that is probably one of the ways. In effect, that is really what the auto pact is; it is a fair trade agreement, but there is a real element of content legislation in that. It may be that we should be looking at that in some other areas.

I guess if we are in for tough times in some of the lines in the world today, then one of the other things we have to take a serious look at is our ability to supply ourselves and import replacement.

Those may or may not be some of the answers. I happen to think they are part of what is probably a pretty big package in terms of protecting ourselves and maintaining our status as a real trading nation, but I do not think we can do it when the goal, very tightly defined and with a very tight framework, is a bilateral comprehensive agreement on the fast-track approach we are on. I think that even sends out signals. We talk about the perception. I think it sends out signals as to, what are we going to get?

In trying to draw my arguments to a close, I come back to the comments we got from three of the senators we talked to down there. We told them about the briefing we had had at the ambassador's residence; that they still felt it was possible to achieve the fast-track approach. The automatic reaction of the US senators and one congressman we talked to was to laugh at us: "No way." When we told them then who had told us this -- and it was one of their own officials -- one of them commented, "That is not what he was telling us," but then they all said with a grin, and friendly, as the Americans are, "However, it might be possible, provided we get a good enough deal."

I am under no illusion. I do not think, I never have thought, that they are bad people, but they are damned tough negotiators too. I have seen enough in my life and in my line of work to know that. I cannot for a moment think that we can do anything but lose in the kind of fast-track approach we are on and the kind of agreement we have.

I guess that is what my frustration has been and why I have said to the Premier that I found it difficult to work in the committee we had in this House, because I did not know when there was any difference between the Tory members and the Liberal members on that committee. They were not willing. They thought the idea of talking took predominance over any other approach we might take. I just do not feel that. I feel that as long as we are tied into this the words of one of my past Tory colleagues, Mr. Elgie, are very prophetic, that all we are doing is exposing the irritants and it is not the route to go.

That is why I wonder if the Premier has seriously thought of trying to change the format or the direction of these talks a bit. I know he is not the federal government, and I appreciate what he says about not trying to usurp its activities when he is in Washington or some other capital; but it also seems to me that he has a real responsibility, because I do think we are looking at tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs, and I do think we are taking a look at what the future makeup and direction of our country is in this particular topic.

It seems to me that somehow or other we have to disengage the current approach and find a broader approach or a new approach to what we are doing and not leave the perception that we are gung-ho even if we have to lose some along the way to achieve an agreement within the kind of time frame we have.

I would appreciate any comments the Premier has on that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is a very large topic the honourable member raised, and I appreciate his point of view.

This discussion we are having today is in a way not a new discussion. It has been going on for a year or so, and I will tell members, it is not the last time we will have this discussion in this House as well.

When one looks back at how this question was born or conceived in this country and how it came to the top of the public policy agenda and who believes in it and who does not believe in it and what they mean by it when they talk about it, still at this point there is no clear definition.

I am sure my honourable friend, like I, has read the history and realized the elections of 1897 and 1911 were fought on this issue and governments have been swept from office on it and it goes back to old John A. Macdonald. It is interesting the changes that go on. If John A. Macdonald knew what Brian Mulroney was doing today, he would roll over in his grave. In fairness, if Wilfred Laurier knew what I was doing, he would roll over in his grave as well. You see the changes that have gone on in this country in the last period of time.

It is interesting that the labour movement in the US -- I have talked to Lane Kirkland about this -- and the AFL-CIO were great international free traders until recently. Then they started to get hip, and it is some of the member's labour friends in the US who are our biggest enemies at the present time, trying to move in on us. It is the United Auto Workers that is putting the big pressure on the auto pact and others; so we are getting this war of labour. One can look back at the history of the relationship of the UAW and the Canadian Auto Workers and a lot of other things. I do not know whether that is a good thing or a bad thing to do. I do not have a judgement on the matter. I am just saying labour is getting very protectionist now. Historically, they have not been that protectionist. Is that the right approach?

We have some very serious domestic economic problems. They have serious domestic economic problems. We have continental economic problems, and the world is changing very quickly. The question is, what should we do as a country? There are some who look at that great market and say, "If we could just hitch our wagon to that, it would solve all our problems." There are others who are far more sceptical, such as the member and myself. I do not think there is any simple, easy solution. I think we kid ourselves when we say that just by affixing our signature to some contract we will solve all our economic problems. It is a mistake, in terms of public perception, to put all our economic and foreign policy eggs in that one basket.

I look at the history of that little item in the last four years in this country, when Brian Mulroney was completely against it and dismissed it. When John Crosbie was trying to sell the idea during the Tory leadership campaign, Mulroney said about free trade, "We will have none of it." I think he went on and quoted Mr. Trudeau as saying: "It is like a mouse lying down with an elephant. You know what happens when the elephant moves." Then he cottoned on to this thing. This was a public policy item driven by Peter Lougheed and Bill Bennett. It was then cottoned on to by Donald Macdonald in his report, and the thing gained credence and currency. Now it is on the agenda.

At this point, frankly, I still do not know what people mean by free trade or liberalized trade or enhanced trade. Nobody does. We have been discussing this thing in a vacuum, because it is in the eyes of the beholder. It means different things to different people. I follow these things fairly closely. If I do not know, I suspect nobody else knows either. I do not say that to be arrogant. That is what is happening.

They are talking now about some kind of arrangement. I have no idea what is going to come out at the end of the pipe. I have no idea whether Murphy and Reisman are going to be able to present something to their respective principals that they think is semi-respectable or not.

The member can say to me, and he and his leader have argued with me, that we should pick up our baseball bats and walk away: "Get out of there. Do not talk to them. Write it off ahead of time." I am not being personal, but I suspect that in some cases that is ideological. In other cases, perhaps it is genuinely believed that we should not be discussing this matter. I could take that approach, but I do not think it is the responsible action in the circumstances. If by chance the member's party was the government of this province, I do not honestly believe he would do that either. Howard Pawley has not done it. He is sitting there talking about this whole thing and seeing what is going to happen.

In spite of our ideology, it behoves us all to be extremely practical. Let us look at the shape of the deal. We are trying to stiffen the resolve of the negotiator. That is why I have been so tough-minded about the auto pact, and I appreciate the member's support and the support of the members opposite in that regard. This province has to stay firm. My worry, like the member's worry, is that if it gets opened up, we can only lose.

We cannot do any better under the terms of that agreement when the whole UAW -- John Dingoll, Don Regal and Carl Levin -- come after us in spades. It could work against us. There is pressure on some of the things, the imports, because the auto pact is now covering a much lesser percentage of the trade; it has gone from something like 95 per cent down to 66 per cent. I could be wrong. If my numbers are wrong, please do not remind me I was wrong.

There is pressure on the duty remission programs and there are some things we may have to look at very much more carefully to avoid some of this pressure that is coming. But it is working well. The member is right. We have higher value added at the moment, but we have not always. I argue, as others should argue, that over the life of that pact it has netted out, and it is called by no less than Roger Smith, a chairman of General Motors, "the greatest public policy trade instrument in the history of the United States."

There is a lot of support by the corporations, as the member knows. What I would like his help to do is to get the UAW on side in the US and tell them to stop picking on us. If he wants to join that committee with the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) and the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), who are going down there, he can go down and talk to the UAW. He has got his message; I have got mine.

The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has already agreed to chair that committee at double the per diem, and I am honoured to have him so do.

1710

I guess what I am trying to say is that I do not think it is in the national interest to walk away from that right now. I guess that is where we have a difference of opinion. We will stay tough-minded on things we have: on agriculture, on the auto pact, on cultural industries and on a lot of other things that mean a lot to me and I think mean a lot to this province and this country as well.

There are a lot of other people with a very different view of the situation. I think we should let it develop. We will continue to put our views forward. I say to the member, I think Ontario is respected there because we are on top of our brief, we have good people working on it and a lot has been invested in putting forward Ontario's views.

I have no idea how this thing will turn out; none at all. I can paint a whole bunch of different scenarios. There are some who talked originally about doing "the big deal," the deal that has got everything in it. God knows what that means. As the member rightly points out, others talk about how they are not going to get rid of countervail. I have heard yes, they are; and no, they are not. What is the point, he would argue and I would argue, of doing it if we do not get rid of countervail. There are ways of modifying that system.

As he knows, it goes through subsidy and injury and a couple of hearings over a long period of time. There are ways, for example, perhaps even some mechanism to solve disputes on a bilateral basis. Some commission, the international joint commission type of committee even, to simplify what is going on now might be constructive, but who knows how they are going to view that situation.

It might turn out to be a mini-deal. My worry, of course, given the political imperatives and the political investment in the situation, is that some cockeyed deal could be called a good deal just for the sake of having a deal and that is why we must be vigilant and determined and rigorous in the scrutiny of the situation.

This issue is not going to go away. I could pick up my baseball bat tomorrow and they could still go on with the discussion and Mr. Pawley could pull out tomorrow and they would still go on with the discussion. I guess that is where the member's party and I have a difference.

I am saying we are going to watch this thing, we are going to monitor it and we are going to take it through to the logical end and see if there is anything there. In that sense I do not see it at the moment, but perhaps someone can prove to me things that I am not aware of at the moment.

I say to my honourable colleague, I do not believe we are locked into an inexorable process that is going to take us somewhere if we do not want to go there.

I guess perhaps we have a difference of opinion over that. He may feel it has been taken so far down the road that we cannot get out of it. I say I am a practical fellow. If we can make a deal that is in Canada's best interest -- and that best interest will be discussed widely here in this House and everywhere across this nation; what bottom line is in our best interest -- then I am in favour; if we cannot, I am not.

It is not an ideological question for me. We do not know the answers to those questions but I am sure it will take the member's full effort, the full effort of the members opposite, myself and others to make that determination at the appropriate point.

I have said I believe we have a de facto veto over the implementation of this situation at the appropriate time. If I pulled out tomorrow, we would not have; we would just blow any opportunity to resolve the outcome.

We are going to continue to monitor the situation and see what happens in a whole variety of areas. I worry about and put forward my concerns about exchange rates, losing our control there, countervail, what happens to us, what happens to them, and all those kinds of questions. National treatment, how other countries would treat it, how they would be treated and what about their subsidies through defence spending and other things. What about our capacity to do individual regional development programs? There is a list of programs that could be hit or subsidies recalled under the present system. What about our social programs here? All of those things are important to me and we are watching them very closely.

I cannot tell the member what will happen, but we will continue to discuss the matter. I hope I have answered my honourable friend's questions as frankly as I possibly can at the moment. As this thing develops, I will be sharing our view along the way.

Mr. Gordon: I noticed in the Globe and Mail there was a recent article that talked about how Sudbury has been rising from the ashes and talked quite extensively about how we are now going to have a cancer treatment centre in Sudbury and we do have a prenatal unit. Both of those projects are projects I worked long and hard for, for four years as a matter of fact.

As well as that, I just want to pay the Premier a compliment, and I know he will take this in good stride as he always does. That is that his government decided to carry on the funding for those projects -- everybody in Sudbury was pleased with that -- and that he has followed up on the commitment.

At the same time, I would like to point out to the Premier, with regard to the fact that we are going to be having more civil servants living in Sudbury as a result of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines locating in the region -- these are all jobs that are very welcome -- the Premier is wont to tell this House from time to time that he is always one for conciliation, that he likes to see people talking.

As a matter of fact, I remember attending a meeting that the Premier chaired with Falconbridge, the union, the local politicians and the region to talk about the layoffs at Falconbridge, and he pointed out at that time how important it was that there be a dialogue that goes on; that many problems can be solved through dialogue. I can recall sitting there and thinking to myself: "I have to agree with that. That makes sense."

That is why I am a little surprised. I understand that on Friday, the Premier received a letter from the regional municipality of Sudbury and from Tom Davies, the chairman of the regional council. On Friday, a letter was given to his office from the regional chairman and the mayor of the city of Sudbury asking the Premier's good offices and intervention in seeing that there be a northern treatment centre for prisons located within the Sudbury region.

I want to bring to the Premier's attention the fact that there are some people living in Sudbury who believe in the conciliatory approach or the approach that recognizes sensibilities and the need for discussion, who believe that is not really happening with regard to this northern treatment centre. They have some very real concerns and I would like to bring those concerns to the Premier's attention now. I do not want to bring all the details, but I would just like to point out some of the things they have said here in a letter attached to a petition of 400 names. What they say here is:

"We are writing you concerning the proposed prison treatment centre in the Kingsway-Barrydown-Second Avenue area. We understand that your committee of Mr. D. McDonald and Dr. Paul Humphries, etc., have now suggested that this centre be erected on the above-mentioned site." This is referring to Correctional Services, and I will come to that in a minute.

"We also understand that this would be one of three experimental units, and we have a question. One question we have for you is, what is the risk to our children? These prisoners have been removed from society for obvious reasons, and you want to place this centre in a residential area. Contrary to our local politicians, the closest house is 1,600 feet away and not 2,800 feet."

They talk about the fact there are a number of schools in the immediate area as well as an extended care residence.

They go on to say: "We feel we have been discriminated against, made to feel like second-class citizens." Their reason I think is quite clear.

"You and your group" -- they refer here to the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Keyes) and his ministry - "were more than willing to come and discuss this prison treatment centre with the people in the $100,000 bracket" and I will explain that in a moment. "However, it appears the people in the $25,000 to $30,000 range are not worthy of your time. In closing, we feel it is imperative that the Minister of Correctional Services consent to meet with us'' -- being the residents of that area - "for a public meeting prior to making your final decision as to the centre's location."

1720

Let me explain it. What happened was that the Ministry of Correctional Services felt, first of all, that Sudbury was an excellent site for a prison treatment centre, because it has the university, it has the adequate psychiatrists and social workers and so forth; it has the infrastructure that is necessary. So what they did is that they initially chose the site that was next to the local sanatorium in Sudbury. At that time, of course, the citizens living in that residential area said. "Hey, wait a minute. This is not a suitable type of edifice to put next to a subdivision."

Much to his credit, the Minister of Correctional Services went up to Sudbury, sat down with those citizens, listened to them and then, after listening to them, said, "If you do not want it in this particular location, then it will not be in this location." As a result, it is not going to be in that location.

However, the Ministry of Correctional Services, in negotiations with the regional municipality and the city of Sudbury, has decided on a location that is very close to another subdivision in our community. I know the Premier wants to hear this. What is happening is that when the people of that area get in touch with the Ministry of Correctional Services -- they want to ask questions and they want answers about what is going to happen with this prison treatment centre -- they cannot get any replies. They cannot get any answers.

What they are asking for is that before any decision is made with regard to a particular site -- and in their case, the particular site that is closest to where they live -- they would like to meet with the ministry officials, they would like to meet with the minister and they would like to have all the details with regard to this particular project.

The reason I am bringing it up is that the Premier has stated on more than one occasion that he runs an open government, he runs a government that has no bars between him and the people and he has always been in favour of full consultation. I would ask that he take this under advisement, because this is going to be going through his office and through cabinet, especially given the fact that a letter has been sent on to him, which arrived on Friday and which he might not have seen. I can acknowledge that, I know he has many matters cross his desk; but I would like to ask him here to make a commitment to those people that full consultation will take place before the final site is decided upon.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Very briefly, I am somewhat familiar with this and I am somewhat familiar with the uproar this has caused in the Sudbury area. It is this government's opinion that the matter should go into the Sudbury area.

The member is right. We should consult. It is one of those situations where nobody likes these things any more than they like garbage dumps. It is a constant problem.

I remember the kerfuffle. I went through one of these things with a prison in my own home town of London, Ontario, when the federal government announced it was going to have one. I have never seen a kerfuffle like that, just as there was one for the energy-from-waste project. These things happen and people have the right to make their determinations.

I can tell the member that no decision has been made. The member may want to be informed, if he is not already, that it is a likelihood it is not going to Sudbury anyway. The member's colleague Jim Kelleher -- because it is a shared federal-provincial program -- is determined it not go into Sudbury. So my advice to the member, if he is representative of those people who want it in Sudbury, and he may not be, maybe he is telling me he does not want it there; but if he does want it there, then he should be talking to his colleague Jim Kelleher, who has other things in mind for this treatment centre.

Mr. Gordon: I would say this to the Premier, first of all, the people of Sudbury are firmly behind having this northern treatment centre in the Sudbury region. There is absolutely no doubt about that. If the Premier had the opportunity to read the letters that were sent to him, he would know that already.

Second, when the Premier gets up and tells me I should go and talk to Kelleher, who happens to be the federal minister from Sault Ste. Marie; that the centre is going to go there and it is not going to go into the Sudbury area, I think he is playing games with us. Let us be very clear that it was the Minister of Correctional Services and his ministry that have been trying to negotiate with the federal minister, Kelleher, to see if there cannot be some kind of joint agreement.

At present, there are many federal prisoners as well as provincial prisoners who come out of the north, and there are costs involved. The Minister of Correctional Services, quite rightly -- and I have to commend him for this -- was looking for ways to economize. It was his ministry that got in touch, first with Mr. Beatty, who had the ministry before Kelleher, and these kinds of negotiations were going on.

If the Premier tells me and the people of Sudbury that it is going to another location because of the federal government, I say to him he is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people in northern Ontario, because it was his people who went out and started negotiating. That is the truth of the matter. Perhaps the Premier should go back and check things out and find out what is really going on in that ministry.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know exactly what is happening. I will restate for the honourable member that our preference, as a government, is to put that centre into the Sudbury area. The member's advice with respect to a particular location is fair enough. He may have a preference in his riding or somewhere else. That is fair enough. That is our preference.

I am telling the member right now -- and the decision has not been made -- that is not Mr. Kelleher's view. Mr. Kelleher has a very different view of the situation. Has the member read his public pronouncements on this matter? I am aware of what is going on behind the scenes. If the member wants to go and fight for his constituency of Sudbury, he should use his contacts with his good friend Mr. Kelleher and express his point of view to him. It is a federal-provincial deal, the minister is exerting his influence in the matter and it is that simple.

I tell the people of Sudbury the very same things I tell the member, because that is the fact and is exactly what is happening in this matter. I am sure the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) knows about this situation and I am sure he will want to take this occasion to stand up and agree with me because he is so --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Come back to your seat and stand up and agree with me.

That is what is happening in the matter. The decision has not been made. It is still being negotiated. We expect a decision in the not-too-distant future. I cannot tell the member in more plain English what our view is and what our operating premise was from the beginning. I cannot tell him that will be the final result because of the federal decision.

Mr. Gordon: Given the fact we are probably talking about 50-cent dollars -- 50 cents perhaps from the provincial side and 50 cents from the federal side -- and/or some other financial arrangements the Premier might be trying to work out, I am pleased to hear him say it is his determination, his wish, that this prison centre should go in the Sudbury region. I acknowledge that is his preference.

At the same time, I find it hard to believe he is going to turn around and see that it goes to another community in the north when he has already indicated the community that is his preference. One of the reasons it is his preference is that he knows the necessary services are there at present. The Sudbury region has reached that critical mass we talk about that is necessary to attract various types of services.

It seems to me if the Premier were to say, "Okay, we are going to take our provincial dollars, even though it is our preference that those provincial dollars be spent in Sudbury for this centre, and we are going to have them be used in another centre," he would be abrogating his position as the Premier of this province. I find it hard to believe he would even suggest going along those directions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, I do not think the member means what he says, because he is being a little silly, but if he feels that strongly, he should tell his friend Kelleher. Does he know how the member feels about this situation? Does the member know how he feels about this situation? Does the member know whether discussions have gone on? I can tell him they have been very heated. It is our view, for the reasons expressed, that the centre is better off in the Sudbury area.

I am telling the member, just so he knows and there is no fooling around, he is in danger of losing it because of his action. It is that simple. If the member wants to take some action -- and we are taking the best action we can -- he should go and deal with it. He has his ways of dealing with this situation, as do we, but it is like a lot of other situations, it is a shared operation. I am telling him where the pressure is coming from, unless he is telling me we should pull out.

1730

Mr. Gordon: I would not suggest for one minute that anything the Premier said was silly. I would not deign to do that. I think he would probably withdraw those remarks anyway. Nevertheless, when we are dealing with this centre, it is quite clear this centre is something the Sudbury region is fully behind.

The Premier says, "Kelleher wants it too." There is not a citizen in this province who is not aware that if someone is elected for a community he is going to fight to get what he can get for that community. That is the normal process. The Premier says, "Are you aware of what he said?" I am not aware of what he said in any meetings that the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Keyes) may have had with him. I am not privy to those kinds of things.

The Premier knows that from time to time we do get up in this House and ask questions and even say: "Would you table for us letters or memos? Would you tell us what is going on?" The Premier is wont to say, or his ministers are wont to say: "Look, we are the government. We decide what is going to happen in this province and you are on the other side now; so sit down and be quiet."

I am saying to him right now that if, as he says, it is his preference that this northern treatment centre be in Sudbury, I can see no logical reason that anything will stop it from going there. The fact that Kelleher wants it? I do not know of one politician who represents a riding who would not be fighting for something that he or she thought would be good for his or her riding.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: When we are talking about Kelleher we are talking about the federal government with its weight and authority. They are the ones who put a prison into Port Cartier. They do things such as that. I do not know whether they are more worried about the member or him. Frankly, I worry about both of them.

I say to the honourable member that since he is fighting for his community, he should go and make the points. This is a thing mutually agreed upon between the two governments. We want the thing to go ahead. Mostly,s we can work out these kinds of things. We do think the infrastructure is better in Sudbury, for the reasons discussed. We have expressed that point of view publicly and very often. The discussions are coming down to the more intimate parts of the discussion, and the member may want to take this under advisement and do his duty for his community.

Mr. Gordon: I have one more point. I want the Premier to know it is my habit to do my duty for my community and I know he is going to do his duty for the province too and see that this centre goes in Sudbury where it belongs.

I might also make the point to the Premier that there are a number of provincial projects coming on stream in the Sudbury region. I know he is giving some thought, for example, to a provincial building in Sudbury as a result of his decision to put the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines into Sudbury. That is one area. I might also point out there was a recent announcement that the Ukrainian senior citizens will be seeing a senior citizens' development built in the region.

I urge the Premier to urge his ministers to see that these projects begin as early as possible in the spring, since, as he is well aware, northern winters often add considerable cost to projects. Since we are all interested in economizing when it comes to taxpayers' dollars, I ask the Premier to urge those ministers to get those projects off the drawing boards as soon as possible.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is a point well taken. With respect to the north in particular, we are pushing all these things as quickly as we possibly can. They have gone out for design. I cannot tell the member exactly the date on the northern development ministry in Sudbury. I believe it is in the hands of the designers right now.

Have they picked a location? I know that in the Sault they have picked the location; they have picked the site already. In North Bay we have the site already, I believe, because we own the property. I am not sure if we have the site in Sudbury right now, but I can tell the member my instructions are -- and the government is committed to this; not to its happening five or 10 years from now but happening right away -- commensurate with the tendering processes, getting local architects and everybody going, we are pushing this thing as quickly as we possibly can. I will pass on the advice of the member.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to talk to the Premier about his general overall statements when he first became Premier. He made a great deal about open government, letting the sun shine in and a lot of other statements. I am very much concerned whether or not he has maintained that particular position and is willing at this time to reflect and perhaps go back the year and seven months that he has now been Premier to try to let some of that sunshine get in, even though it is in the middle of winter, which I believe the Premier has not put into practice effectively enough.

Let me quote him. For instance, at the very first, May 14, 1984, during the Premier's estimates, on page 1507 of Hansard, the present Premier was talking to the former Premier about freedom of information:

"It is something we feel very strongly about. It goes fundamentally to the way we as Liberals see our responsibilities as stewards of the public's money and as trustees of its information. We would implement freedom of information very soon after being elected. We have a draft bill prepared that has been vetted. I believe it would go a long way to solving a lot of the Premier's problems in trying to do this."

Early in July, when we got back to the House, I believe the first bill that the government introduced was the freedom-of-information bill, Bill 34. That bill has languished on the order paper and in committee for some period of time. I was a member of the then procedural affairs committee, which was first charged with having public hearings on Bill 34 and then clause-by-clause on Bill 34. I was also a member of the Legislative Assembly committee, which took over that responsibility at a later date.

There is only one thing that is stalling freedom of information at this time, and that is the reluctance of the Attorney General to put this high enough on his priority list to bring forward that bill in a real manner and spend the time with committee to go through this very difficult piece of legislation, explain to the committee what it means and put it into law.

I guess I am fearful that as the government grows older day by day, there is a greater reluctance day by day to carry this thing to fruition. I have a very great question mark in my mind that before an election is called by the Premier, which is rumoured to be this spring, Bill 34 will ever see the light of day.

That is one area in terms of open government that I am very much concerned that the Premier is willing to call and go forward with, because he has left it now for 19 months. According to his statement back in May 1984, it was a real priority of the Liberal Party; it does not seem to be any more.

Secondly, in terms of dealing with Bill 34 the government and ministers have time and time again refused information to members of the opposition which would be made available under Bill 34. Therefore, the Premier not only is unwilling to call that bill and bring it forward but also is unwilling to live by that legislation at this time.

I refer specifically to the information which the member for Eglinton has called repeatedly upon the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to release with regard to the assessment of homes in Metropolitan Toronto. That information clearly is within the public realm. It was paid for by the people of Ontario who are entitled to see that information.

1740

Last week I was in the estimates of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. The member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) asked about a report, which the Solicitor General has had in his ministry for some time, dealing with police services to Franco-Ontarians. The minister has refused to release that report, yet it was paid for by the public of Ontario and should be on the table in terms of Bill 34 and freedom of information.

I have asked the Attorney General whether such-and-such a document would be released or would be available under Bill 34. He has deflected those questions and refused to answer them.

Do we really have a commitment on the part of this government to open government and to releasing information that has been paid for by the public and should go into the public realm? I believe, as time goes on, we are going to lose the thrust of this matter. The Premier needs to make a commitment on this matter right now.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am glad to hear my honourable colleague speak so eloquently and forcefully on this bill. In fairness to the member, he did speak that way when he was a member of the government as well, but he was the only one there who did, unfortunately, at the time. Hence, they junked any of the initiatives the member brought forward.

I can tell him that, unfortunately, the bill is hung up in a committee. It was the first bill we introduced because it is something we believe in. We have taken a great number of initiatives in this House to change the procedures and make the House more effective for back-benchers --

Mr. Sterling: Why do you not live by it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can tell the member. Let us get that bill passed, let us get it up in the House and let us get it into the law of the land. We have brought it in. It is something we believe in. It is just the way we have --

Mr. McClellan: You have to get Ian Scott into the committee first.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We will get him into the committee. That is not a problem.

Look at the way we have released all the public opinion polls that the previous government used to sit on. We have released all the order-in-council appointments which the previous government used to sit on, which it used to hide and protect.

I say to my honourable friend -- I am not making this personal, because I know the member's commitment to this matter -- his government's record on this matter stinks; it is nothing to be proud of. This member, I know, was pushing for the matter but he could not get it through to his colleagues because of Roy McMurtry and a lot of others, and that spoke to the priority of his government on freedom of information.

We have brought television into this Legislature in nothing flat, to let everybody see what we are doing, because we are not embarrassed about it. We have published the opinion polls, the order-in-council appointments and a whole raft of other things. Every time the member has a little point, he brings it in the spirit of freedom of information and says, "We have to bring it all in and lay it all out." I can tell the member we share the things we think are covered by the act and will continue to do so.

I do believe this government has participated in an open way in this regard. I am not suggesting we are perfect, but if perfection is relative, we are relatively a lot more perfect than his government ever was. I am not embarrassed about that. I say to my honourable friend he knows that and he knows that in candour.

I sat as the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, frustrated by the lack of information, by the lack of anything that was accorded to the parties. The opposition parties have two, three and four times the amount of money to do research and a lot of other things than they had when we were there.

Mr. McClellan: It was easy.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That was a nice grab the members made just before they moved out. I congratulate them on that. They need it to run their party, and I understand that. They have problems financing their party. They have to have someone to do it.

Mr. McClellan: No, we do not.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yes, they do. As soon as they saw the members on Wheel of Fortune, they all wrote in and wanted their money back. That was the old Liberal guarantee, which was started by Judd Buchanan, "If you don't like what they are doing, you can get your money back." I heard all the New Democrats, after the Wheel of Fortune, wrote and said, "We want our money back, because of McClellan just squandering it up there." That is what I heard.

Back to my point: We have brought in many initiatives dramatically different from those of the previous government. What we have to do is get that bill brought forward. It is in committee. It has been a complicated one, I gather. I do not know all the details. We are anxious to get that passed. It speaks to the way we feel government should conduct itself, and I think in spite of what my honourable friend may say, this government has conducted itself in that way. If the member wants any proof, he should just compare it to what used to be the case.

Mr. Sterling: Then the Premier will have no fear in giving me his commitment today that if we ask for a document, a letter or information of any kind, he will answer our party or any member of this Legislature in one of two fashions. He will say, "You can have the document. Here it is;" or he will say to us, "You cannot have it, and it would not be available under Bill 34." That is all I want.

What he is doing now, and what his ministers are doing now, is dodging the question. If, every time I ask for a document and he says to me, "You cannot have it," he says he is covered by the present Bill 34, then that will be fine and dandy. Will he give me that assurance right now ?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are saying, get the bill passed. We will get a freedom-of-information commissioner to help us in the determination of all these matters and the appropriate way of handling the situation and we will happily live by his or her determination. That is what we are anxious to do, and we wish the member would co-operate in so doing.

Mr. Sterling: The Premier should not lay that on me. It is the damned Attorney General (Mr. Scott) we cannot get into committee. He has been dodging the committee for a year and a half, and we want to get on with it. The Premier should get him into committee. He is the problem.

Interjection.

Mr. Sterling: It is the Attorney General. The chairman of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly is going to stand up and confirm it, I am sure.

Mr. Breaugh: I did not mean to spend a lot of time in these estimates. The committee on the Legislative Assembly has offered some opinions on how estimates might be done in a slightly more useful, organized way. It strikes me this is one of those afternoons when we should not only have read the report but also have adopted it.

It seems to me we have spent a fair amount of legislative time in the last couple of weeks when this would have been a lesson well learned by all of us. We have sat in the main legislative chamber of Ontario, clogged by estimates. It seems to me that is quite a useless, expensive, obnoxious. nonproductive exercise. We know there are better alternatives to doing it and we ought to go and do that. That is the first thing I wanted to say.

The second thing is on the matter of the freedom-of-information bill. I was a little alarmed to hear the Premier point his finger at a former minister of the crown and indicate he thought that minister's record on freedom of information stunk. The same smell from this administration's attitude towards freedom of information is wafting over the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: You signed the accord. It is your fault.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. Let me set the record straight, because I think it does need to be put clearly on the record this afternoon.

The standing committee on procedural affairs, now called the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, had this bill. Frankly, we thought the government was interested in proceeding rapidly with this legislation. We advertised widely and held a number of public hearings on the bill. We received a large number of submissions. Surprisingly, a lot of people out there are interested in this concept, in how it might work, in what needs to be protected as a matter of privacy, and in the main in what should be a matter of public record, what the public should have relatively easy access to. We sat through that long public-hearing process.

Oddly enough, while we were doing that, the Attorney General, who was very busy -- I grant him that -- repeatedly said: "I am sorry. I cannot get to the committee meetings today, but proceed without me." That was fine during the public-hearing sessions of the process. I do not think any of us really had any problem with the Attorney General not being in attendance. But the hard fact is that somebody from the government side has to carry a bill through committee. It can be a parliamentary assistant, but until recently he has not had one. Normally, it is the minister.

The minister rightly has indicated that this bill, in whatever form, is going to be a substantial change in the way government in Ontario operates, and he wants to be part of the action. My House leader has been diligently pursuing the matter at the House leaders' meetings. So has my whip; so have a lot of people. For one thing, the clerk of the committee has been trying to find dates when the Attorney General, his parliamentary assistant or anybody the government wants to name is available to carry this bill through committee.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: How about you?

Mr. Breaugh: I will carry the sucker for you.

1750

All through the fall session, we have been trying to find some soul stupid enough, on the part of the government side, to bring the bill into committee and carry it. Unfortunately, we have been unsuccessful so far. I have hopes that when the House prorogues, we will have some renewed promises that the Attorney General or his parliamentary assistant or some other designated hitter, I hope not the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) but somebody on the government side, will appear in front of that committee and carry the bill. I do not care who it is. They can send anyone they want to carry this bill.

Quite frankly, I will tell them that in the committee, when we have had our initial discussions around this bill, it is not a particularly partisan operation. The committee itself is not particularly partisan in nature. On all sides, we have a reasonable understanding of what freedom-of-information legislation is about, how it works in other jurisdictions. There will be some arguing over the mechanics of it and there are some fundamental principles to he decided, but on all sides in the committee we are anxious to proceed with this bill. There are a number of us who are kind of parliamentary junkies, so to speak, I being one of them. We think this is important to the parliamentary process and we want it to happen, but it has not happened yet and we are growing increasingly frustrated with the process.

While I am on my feet, I might as well throw in my disappointment with the process that is happily now called appointments in the public sector. I know the books are now available. That much knowledge is available to us all. But I tell the Premier that I, for one, am angry and frustrated that a committee of mine spent a lot of time writing a report on appointments in the public sector. It was difficult, and I want to make this very clear, because I had, on one hand, a political party which had spent a long time keeping the whole patronage system quiet. It wanted nothing said about it.

If you asked questions, no one really knew how appointments were made in the public sector in Ontario. If you asked the members of the assembly, you would get one perspective on how it was done. The truth is, in the Premier's office there was a small group of people who farmed out these decisions. Sometimes ministers would do that, sometimes local prominent party people would do that. The cream of them all, of course, was retained very tightly in the control of the Premier's office.

We can say this much. We have a slightly more public process at work today, but a committee of the Legislature spent a long, painful session suggesting another way to go about appointments in the public sector. The committee itself, although it was not unanimous in the sense that everyone agreed with everything that was in the report, in the end had kicked heads long enough to know there is a little in here for all sides of the House and, most important, there is a lot in here that is good for the people of Ontario.

So we suggested in our report a process for changing appointments in the public sector. We brought it into this chamber, and this chamber, without a dissenting voice, accepted the report of the committee on appointments. I contend there is a school of thought that has been put to me that, once the assembly in Ontario says, "We accept that committee's report," at that moment there should be a new process put in place.

All of us are aware a new government tried to do things in a somewhat different way, and I, for one, appreciate that. I agree that it may have been a little unfair, after 42 years of standing outside the door, to take away the whole patronage system the moment they got inside at the dinner table. They had about a year before the committee report came down.

I agree there are some mechanics that have to be worked out and a new system will not go into place overnight, so there has not been a lot of crying foul on this side of the House, but I am going to remind the Premier again today. We were given a job by the Legislature to design a new way for the appointments in the public sector. We did that. It was a long, hard, difficult, awkward job but the committee did that. We brought it back to this assembly and this assembly adopted that appointments process.

That may not mean it is a perfect process. It may not mean it is even a workable process, but it does mean something. This assembly has given some instructions to the government on how it believes appointments ought to be made in the public sector. I believe the government cannot ignore that any longer.

Frankly, I was disappointed initially when I saw a written response to the committee's report that was not very polite, in my view. I would reiterate that the government has a chance now, as the House prorogues and we go away and think about things for a little while, to make some wonderful new announcements about accepting what the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, without dissent, said was a good idea, and that is that the public appointments process ought to be put in place as quickly as the government can do that.

Let me throw two cents more in here around conflict of interest, which is another matter that will come before the assembly in the form of a bill and may in fact wind up before my committee again.

I do not think in the history of Canadian politics there has been such a flurry of politicians accused of wrongdoing, and I think if politicians are like anybody else who is accused of wrongdoing, some will be found guilty but some will be found innocent, and the tragedy is that in politics the public perception is what really counts.

It probably does not matter whether some politician technically violates a conflict-of-interest law or guideline. What does matter is that the public is growing increasingly concerned that more and more people in public life are being accused of wrongdoing and, more important, we do not seem to have any mechanism whereby we determine whether they are or they are not.

If you were someone like Sinclair Stevens, at this point in time, after your hearing process has been broadcast across Canada from one end of the country to the other, it really does not matter very much now to Sinclair Stevens or his family or his political party or the rest of the members of the federal Parliament whether the jury comes in with a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The process has wrecked him asunder. He is long gone.

I think the conflict-of-interest legislation that has been proposed in this chamber has some serious flaws in it, but it is a proposal that can be worked with and I believe that is important. Most important, I believe that we must do everything we can on all of these fronts to restore in whatever measure we can the public perception out there that these people are not all crooks, that this government does not have a whole lot to hide, that this government appreciates that in this day and age the public has a right to know, whether it is prepared to give it to them or not, and it is ridiculous that we find out things about governments in Canada because of freedom-of-information laws that are passed and in operation in the United States. It is lunacy that people from Canada have to go to Washington to get information on activities in Canada, but they do.

I want to give the government a little prod on those three fronts because I think it deserves it.

To be fair, I think this government has been a little overwhelmed with its legislative initiatives in the first while and so I am not going to cry totally foul, but I am going to remind the House that the freedom-of-information bill was brought in here with a great fanfare and surely there must be a way to get some minister of the crown to carry that bill before a committee. That should not be an impossible task.

Those are matters that will be ongoing matters of discussion here, and I think the Premier in the last couple of minutes could maybe give us a quick response on that because I believe that deserves the attention of the Premier and deserves the attention of this government.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member makes a number of good points and I very much value his views on the working of this Legislature. He is, as he says, a parliamentary junkie or junkie of some type or other, but anyway, whatever kind he is, he is a member whose opinion I do respect very much on all these matters.

Let me just say that I am anxious to get this freedom-of-information bill through the House. I think it is an important piece and it was symbolically important. I say to the honourable member, and I think he has been fair-minded about the situation, I think we have brought in a great number of changes in the way this place operates. I could delineate them and could compare them to the Dark Ages when we were in opposition, because it is my view that I have a great deal of respect for the members of this House individually and collectively. It is one of the reasons I have asked my colleagues to include members opposite in some of the trade missions we do and to try to find the areas where we have common ground.

There are a lot of areas we are going to fight about, but there are other areas we do not have to fight about and we should be trying to separate those things in our own minds.

I say to the member for Eglinton I would not be comfortable with a position where people go down to Washington and take different views on every subject from those the government of the day has, but if we can work out that situation, all operating as gentleladies and gentlemen, then there are constructive ways that we can work together.

Let me tell the members what made me a little cynical about the way this process operates and that was, and I do not want to resurrect old wounds, but a double report on one of my colleagues when we ran into trouble and we were accused in the House of certain things and I said, "Okay, all the facts will come out." I will tell the members it took a brave party to stand up and let this thing be tried by people with a partisan interest.

1800

When I was hit with that, I had absolutely no idea. I am telling the member just so he knows. I do not have quite as much faith in the ability of this place to operate independently as I used to, prior to giving that decision out. I am glad the member's friend is here and listening to me in that regard because I regard that as a partisan, political exercise and if you want double jeopardy, you would not put your friends through that, particularly somebody I care about a great deal, who in my mind was a very able minister.

They say, "Okay, if we cannot get you the first time, we will get you the second time." I saw partisanship at its very worst. I agree with him; my honourable colleague speaks well about the problems all politicians have and the kind of scrutiny we all have and the kind of daily problems we face, the daily rumours that run about every one of us in our personal and public lives. That is something we put up with. I hope that our conflict-of-interest bill will go some way to address those kinds of problems with complete disclosure. My friend may have better ideas. I am interested in those when they come into the House, with an independent commissioner to look at those things, to try to raise the ethical standards in the House.

I share with the member -- we all do -- the sense of cynicism that pervades our business, and I told him one of my ambitions was to try to get rid of some of that cynicism that surrounds our process. I am a little older and a little wiser now. I still have that original dream, but I have been beaten up on the way to that dream. I was beaten up when I gave blood along with my colleague the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan) in that regard.

Nothing has happened -- and we have had lots of tough issues in this House. There are lots of disagreements in the last 10 years that I have had with the member and everybody else, and I say that I have great respect for the process and great affection for my colleagues, but that incident was the most troublesome incident that I personally have faced in this House. Nothing gave me more personal anguish than that.

Members can say that governments take advantage of their situation, the power that they have, the power of secrecy and all that kind of thing, but oppositions take advantage of their situation too. The member should read in Hansard some of the things that have been said in this House in the last few months. I can say, frankly, not very much by the member's party, but --

Mr. Chairman: Premier, I remind you of the time.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: -- it is unbelievable, and when those kinds of things are going to be let fly in this House, it invites a different kind of response from the government. As honourable people, I hope we can work this matter out. We will discuss this again next week because it is a very important subject for discussion. I thank the member for bringing it up.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, just before the committee rises and reports, I would like to ask the Premier --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Time. Come back next week.

Mr. Sterling: I just wanted to indicate what I want to discuss next week so that he can properly prepare himself. I want to talk about his reaction to private members' bills.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Grandmaître, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.

The House adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

February 2, 1987

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

APPRENTICESHIP OFFICE

AUDITOR GENERAL-PRISONS

TELEVISION PROGRAM

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

HELP CENTRE

NURSING HOME

DELEGATION TO HAITI

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WILDLIFE '87

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

RESPONSES

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

WILDLIFE '87

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

WESTERN COAL

TECHNOLOGY FUND

DAY CARE

PAPER MILL

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

HAZARDOUS SPILL

LABOUR DISPUTE

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

COURT FACILITIES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

GASOLINE TAX

UNEMPLOYMENT

ENERGY-FROM-WASTE PLANT

PETITIONS

DIALYSIS UNIT

HOSPITAL CLOSING

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ECONOMIC CONVERSION ACT

HIGH STREET RECREATION COMPLEX OF ST. THOMAS AND ELGIN ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET OFFICE