Hansard Transcript 1988-May-31 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Laughren: The members of the House and people across Ontario will know that in the last minority government, between 1985 and 1987, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) introduced a bill which would have deconditionalized lottery profits to allow them to be spent on things other than culture and recreation. Under persistent questioning in opposition to it from the members of the House from the two opposition parties, that bill was withdrawn and was never proceeded with. Under persistent questioning as to why it was not proceeded with, the Treasurer indicated he did not have plans to reintroduce it. That simply was not true. As soon as the government got its coveted majority, along came Bill 119, an act that would deconditionalize the lottery profits.

Municipalities all across this province count a great deal on lottery profits to fund their cultural and recreational programs. Right after the introduction of this bill, as though by coincidence, the Ontario Lottery Corp., an arm’s length corporation supposedly, launched a $1-million campaign to try to sell Ontario on the need for this new bill, but it will not admit that is the purpose of the advertising. That is exactly what it is. It is a smarmy, inappropriate use of Ontario lottery profits in order to convince Ontario that it should support a bill to which the Treasurer knows there is going to be a great deal of opposition all across the province.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr. Villeneuve: Last Thursday the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) expressed his concern that the free trade agreement with the United States would make it difficult to maintain or expand this province’s social and welfare services. I am sure the minister will be relieved to learn that this is not the case.

When he made his statement, the minister was no doubt unaware that there had never been one single, solitary case in which a social welfare program anywhere in this country has been modified, limited or eliminated as a result of a trade agreement or trade action.

He must also have been aware that the free trade agreement is consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and that under GATT, generally available social programs are simply not countervailable, a fact the Americans discovered about three years ago.

He was also apparently unaware that there is nothing in the free trade agreement which will impede the ability of this province or this country to develop and finance social services and that the treaty clearly protects the rights of Canadians, including the minister, to take measures to protect public welfare.

It does not surprise me that the minister was confused on this matter in that he was only following the lead provided by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who has spent the last two years desperately searching for some rational reason to justify his opposition to a trade agreement which will provide this country with significant new employment and economic opportunities while fully protecting our rights as a sovereign nation.

SALE OF DRUG-RELATED EQUIPMENT

Mr. McGuinty: On December 10, 1987, I asked the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) a question about the sale of drug-related equipment. In response to that statement, I received many calls from parents and teachers, counsellors and members of law enforcement agencies, who share my concern. Since this is a matter for the Criminal Code, I passed along my concerns to the Minister of Justice for Canada, the Honourable Ray Hnatyshyn.

I am pleased to inform members of the Legislature and concerned parents across Ontario that since I raised this matter, an act to amend the Criminal Code of Canada has been debated and referred to a committee of the House of Commons in Ottawa. I wish to congratulate Robert Homer, MP for Mississauga North, who drafted and introduced this important bill.

A House of Commons committee has been established to deal with this matter and I hope that it will act as quickly as possible. For too long, we have ignored the enormous social and personal costs that have been inflicted on countless families because of illicit drugs. I congratulate the members of the House of Commons in Ottawa for supporting a bill which not only assists in the fight against drugs, but also recognizes the valuable role that private members’ bills can play in dealing with important matters of public policy.

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Swart: The crunch is fast approaching for Niagara College. Within 10 days the board will be making its decision on which programs will be eliminated. The necks of seven programs are on the chopping block waiting for the axe to fall. The irony is that for some of these programs there is a long student waiting list to get into them. For almost all of them, there is heavy demand for the graduates. If these programs are not cut, others with equal attractiveness will be. One way or another, about 30 staff and ISO student places will be eliminated.

Is this Liberal government going to permit this to happen? I suggest that it is not only permitting it, it is part of the overall strategy. Without ever acknowledging it, the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) and this government have consciously determined to reduce the number of college program options available to students in any area of the province with only one college, and that is most of the areas. No longer will they be true community colleges fully serving the respective areas. They are being forced to specialize. Many students will have to move out of their own communities if they are going to get the course they want. Of course, many of them cannot afford it, so they will just drop out.

If the scenario I have portrayed is wrong, let the ministry prove it now by telling Niagara and other colleges that it will work out a funding formula with them so that the program can continue.

BLUE MOON

Mr. Runciman: Members will be aware that shining over Ontario tonight will be that rare occurrence known as a blue moon. This phenomenon occurs when we have two full moons appearing in one month. Tonight will be the second this month. Astronomers may have their own explanation of this, but it is very clear that in Ontario this month there is a political aspect to this event. The moon will be bluer tonight because of the overwhelming reaction to the Treasurer’s (Mr. R. F. Nixon) recent budget, compounded by the outcry over the government’s Sunday shopping law.

The increase in Progressive Conservative support over the last month is clearly going to make tonight’s moon one of the bluest in years over Ontario. It has become apparent that major government policies are nothing more than stardust -- indeed, Toronto stardust. It is clear there is going to be a blue moon rising over Ontario tonight in more ways than one. I would ask unanimous consent of the House to declare this month Progressive Conservative month in Ontario.

Mr. Mahoney: It is more likely a Blue Lite evening tonight.

BARBARA TURNBULL

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to bring an inspiring news item to the attention of this assembly. I am sure all members will recall the tragic incident of an 18-year-old store clerk, Barbara Turnbull, who was shot during a holdup at a late-night convenience store five years ago. The shot severed Barbara’s spine and paralysed her from the neck down. Today Barbara, although confined to a wheelchair, is pursuing a degree in journalism at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism in Arizona.

1340

Although there are many disabled students enrolled and living on campus, Barbara is the first quadriplegic person to live in the student housing provided by Arizona State University. Barbara has discovered the student way of life. She attends football games and is a regular at one of the student hangouts, the Dash Inn. Barbara was quoted in an article by the Mississauga News on April 13, 1988, as saying, “I felt I was missing the ultimate student experience while living at home in Toronto. I can assert more independence here and be on my own.

Her courage sets a fine example for us all and certainly profiles the essence of National Access Awareness Week, which is being recognized from May 29 to June 4. This week celebrates the successes of our disabled and establishes the goal of five-star communities in Ontario.

In her courage and determination, Barbara Turnbull has not only proven her independence but has gained the respect of the entire community. Her story certainly represents one of the many achievements that will be celebrated during National Access Awareness Week.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Members will recall that on May 16, Vickery Stoughton, president and chief executive officer of the Toronto Hospital, was appointed investigator into the recurring deficit situation at Cambridge Memorial Hospital. This action was taken because Cambridge hospital has had a deficit since fiscal year 1986-87. The projected deficit for the current fiscal year was $3 million.

I wish to inform the House that Mr. Stoughton has completed his investigation and today I am tabling his report for the members’ information. Let me quote directly some of the report’s findings:

“Contrary to the majority of Ontario hospitals, Cambridge Memorial has authorized medical staff changes without freeing up or acquiring additional resources to support these staff additions.

“Administrative ability to manage existing resources and acquire new resources prior to introducing additional costs has not been demonstrated in the past three to four years.

“The approach to date has been to make additional appointments, provide access to more hospital facilities to respond to utilization demands, approve expenditures to meet these demands and then ask the government for help in funding deficits. In contrast, other Ontario hospitals identify community needs, quantify the cost of meeting these needs, submit requests through the district health councils to Ministry of Health officials and hire new employees only after programs have been approved.

“The current situation at the hospital appears to be related to input provided to the board by management of the hospital. Administration made arguments and received approvals from the board which led to the deficits.

“The hospital board firmly believes they were responding to appropriate community health care needs.

“The Cambridge Memorial board needs specific authority to manage the complexities that created the problems. To do this, they must clearly understand both their responsibility and their authority and they must have an administration that manages the hospital in accordance with hospital policy that does not contradict government policy.”

Ministry representatives have met with the hospital board chairman and are prepared to continue meeting to develop a satisfactory operational plan. The board also has the investigator’s report and will be reviewing its implications.

It is my preference to work with the board and its chairman and to provide them with the administrative support necessary to operate the hospital in a fiscally responsible way, gradually eliminating the deficit while maintaining an acceptable level of community service.

SEXUAL ASSAULT / VIOLENCES SEXUELLES

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As minister responsible for women’s issues, I announced at a press conference earlier today the launching of a sexual assault public education campaign which will be held throughout the month of June. The campaign has been developed for the Ontario government by the Ontario women’s directorate, a central government agency whose mandate is, of course, to work for the economic, legal and social equality of the women of our province.

En tant que ministre délégué à la Condition féminine, j’ai annoncé, lors d’une conférence de presse tenue aujourd’hui, le lancement d’une campagne d’éducation du public sur l’agression sexuelle, campagne qui aura lieu pendant tout le mois de juin. Cette campagne a été élaborée pour le gouvernement de l’Ontario par la Direction générale de la condition féminine de l’Ontario, organisme central du gouvernement qui a pour mandat de faire avancer l’égalité économique, juridique et sociale des femmes dans la province.

This is the first campaign of its kind in Ontario.

The theme of the campaign is “Sexual Assault: It’s a Crime” – “L’agression sexuelle, c’est un crime.” Our goal is to prevent this crime by increasing public awareness and understanding of sexual assault and the myths that surround it. The campaign has a number of components.

Its centrepiece is two television advertisements which challenge widely held myths that blame women for being sexually assaulted and allow assailants to avoid responsibility for their actions. The ads have been produced both in English and French and will air throughout the month of June. As well, a brochure on sexual assault will be widely distributed in many public locations throughout the province, including grocery stores, during the campaign.

The third component of the campaign is also significant. A total of $120,000 has been issued by the Ontario women’s directorate to some 69 community groups across Ontario. These funds are being used for local public education initiatives, specific to the needs of local communities. These projects will reinforce the message of the mass-media advertising.

I want to give the House a few examples of what this money is doing in local communities. For example, in Chatham, the Chatham-Kent Sexual Assault Centre is undertaking a survey and a sexual assault public education display in a local shopping mall, and presenting two public forums on the issue. In Kenora, the Ojibway Tribal Family Services group is presenting sexual assault workshops, led by native female elders, to native women from 14 bands. In Toronto, the Disabled Women’s Network is putting out a brochure and holding a workshop, and the Immigrant Women’s Health Centre is holding six workshops for immigrant women in workplaces, each workshop in a different language.

These local initiatives are impressive examples of the important work being done by community organizations on this very important issue. I want to thank them and also members of the community advisory committee who helped guide the Ontario women’s directorate in the development of this campaign. We appreciate their assistance and their commitment.

The directorate has invited 13 ministries of the provincial government to the first meeting in mid-June of an interministerial committee as part of a co-ordinated provincial government approach to the issue of sexual assault.

This co-ordinated approach is similar to the government’s approach on the issue of family violence. The committee will look at new and ongoing policies and programs -- programs such as information sessions on sexual assault which were presented by the Ontario women’s directorate to provincial crown attorneys and judges in the district court system in Ontario.

I would like now to outline the goals and the messages of the campaign that was launched today.

First, we want to increase the public’s awareness about what sexual assault is and the fact that it is a crime. Sexual assault includes not only rape but any unwanted act of a sexual nature, from intrusive touching to intercourse.

In this campaign, we are addressing the myths that surround sexual assault. It is time to put aside the fiction and take a hard look at the truth. One of the most misleading myths is that in most cases women are sexually assaulted by strangers. The facts are different. In more than half of all instances of sexual assault, women are assaulted by men they know -- their colleagues, neighbours, employers, acquaintances or husbands.

Another critical message we want to convey is that we all have a community responsibility for prevention of sexual assault. This crime is far more prevalent than most people realize. In fact, one out of every four Canadian women is sexually assaulted in her lifetime and the majority of women do not report the crime. Many women tell no one at all, often out of fear that they will be blamed. Women suffer pain and trauma from sexual assault, even many years after. They may show this in different ways or not show it at all.

1350

We must place responsibility for sexual assault on the offenders and stop blaming the victims. No one should have to live in fear. As a community, we need to care about and talk about this issue. Everyone has to understand that a woman has a right to say no, whatever the situation.

When the right of women to the security of the person is recognized and respected, we will be on our way to preventing sexual assault and achieving true equality for women in our society. I believe this campaign we have launched today is a significant step in that direction.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to inform the Legislature of the latest initiatives by the Premier’s Council technology fund.

The Premier’s Council, which is made up of leaders of the labour, business and academic communities, is a sterling example of the spirit of co-operation which must exist between key players in the Ontario economy if we are to maintain our present level of prosperity.

The technology fund directed by the Premier’s Council forms the cornerstone of the government’s drive to devise long-term strategies for economic development in Ontario. These strategies focus on the need for technological advancement and research and development as a way of improving our international competitiveness.

The role of the technology fund is to support and encourage science and technology research in the private sector and at post-secondary institutions. The fund has already provided some $38 million for eight industrial research and development projects.

Today I am pleased to announce that three more projects will be funded by the technology fund.

The first is a project by the Canadian Semiconductor Design Association to improve the abilities of Ontario firms to compete in the design and manufacture of integrated circuits. These circuits are one of the key building blocks for a vast array of modern high-technology products. The Ontario government will provide up to $22.7 million to four companies, in association with several Ontario universities, to design new types of silicon circuits.

The four companies are Calmos Systems Inc. of Kanata, Linear Technologies Inc. of Burlington, Mosaid Technologies Inc. of Kanata and the semiconductor division of Mitel Corp., also in Kanata.

This project will help these companies pool their resources and talents to build better circuits. These superior circuits will then be transferred into products such as hearing aids, telecommunications equipment, test systems and encoders.

The second project involves Pylon Electronic Development Co. Ltd. of Nepean, in collaboration with Queen’s University and the National Research Council. Pylon will develop a compact and easily portable detector for monitoring a variety of substances such as narcotics or pesticides. It will also have industrial applications. For example, it will be able to identify different types of wood in a sawmill operation or determine the age of fish products. The technology fund will provide up to $1.5 million for this project.

The third project is a proposal by ISG Technologies Inc. of Mississauga to develop a new diagnostic machine. These machines will be able to give doctors instant three-dimensional images of a patient’s body, allowing prompt diagnosis of internal anatomy without X-rays. The technology fund will provide up to $4.7 million for this project.

I believe these projects will enhance the province’s abilities to compete in world markets. They will boost exports and replace imports, and that means greater wealth for us all. Indeed, the recently released report by the Premier’s Council entitled Competing in the New Global Economy identified the need to develop more home-grown Ontario exporting companies if we are to continue to increase our standard of living.

The technology fund’s assistance for projects such as those announced here today will play a vital role in helping the province achieve this goal.

SENIOR CITIZENS’ MONTH

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: Over the years, the quality of life in this province has been immeasurably enriched by the contributions and the dedication of the older members of our society. It is in tribute to our province’s seniors that the government of Ontario has once again proclaimed June as Senior Citizens’ Month, a time to honour the role of seniors in our society, celebrate their achievements and encourage their continuing active involvement in the life of our province.

When we celebrate Senior Citizens’ Month in Ontario, we show our appreciation of the collective wisdom, experience and service of a growing and vital segment of our population.

This year, the theme for Senior Citizens’ Month is “Opportunity is Ageless,” a theme which expresses the enthusiasm and creativity with which seniors take advantage of the choices around them. At every age, young and old, there are many new and exciting opportunities available, opportunities to get involved and to participate fully in life.

As in past years, the Senior Citizens’ Month theme will provide the focus for the month’s activities as well as the slogan for the annual Senior Citizens’ Month poster, available this year in 29 languages.

The highlight of the province’s tribute to seniors will be the presentation of the Ontario Senior Achievement Awards by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) at 6 p.m. on Monday, June 6, in the main foyer of the Legislative Building. The purpose of these awards is to recognize and honour seniors who have made significant contributions to our communities and to the quality of life in Ontario, particularly during their retirement years.

Nominations flowed in from every corner of the province, with an overwhelming total of over 700 individual seniors nominated for an award. With the assistance of Mrs. Ivy St. Lawrence, chair of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens, and two of our colleagues -- the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) representing the New Democratic Party caucus and the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) representing the Progressive Conservative caucus -- 21 recipients of this year’s award have been chosen.

The 1988 award recipients are: Ms. Kate King-Fox-Assinewai, Wikwemikong; Louis Audette, Ottawa; Ernest Berner, Guelph; Sister Maria Cordis, Hamilton; Jack Cox, Orillia; Jack Dyce, Hillsburgh; Mrs. Dolores Gray, Kenora; Herbert Hanmer, Ottawa; Mrs. Emily Irvine, Windsor; Florent Lalonde, Welland; Aimé Lamoreaux, St. Charles; Jack Lutsky, Willowdale; Mrs. Charlotte Matthews, Sarnia; Mrs. Eileen Nagels, Mississauga; Mrs. Gladys Owen, Espanola; Mrs. Eunice Robinson, Mississauga; Dr. Gordon Romans, Willowdale; Mrs. Florence Rowsome, North Augusta; Louis Sfreddo, Dryden; Mrs. Margaret Sinclair, Aylmer West; Mrs. Mildred Temple, Unionville.

Many of the opportunities that are available to seniors in our communities today would not have been possible without the vision, commitment and energy of these outstanding men and women. They continue to contribute to the world around them and enrich the lives of many. They are role models for all of us, young and old alike.

This year’s annual award recipients are being honoured not only for their individual accomplishments, but also because they typify the spirit of thousands of seniors across this province. Their accomplishments will help increase society’s awareness of the vital role seniors play in our communities. Right now, for example, almost one third of volunteers in Ontario are senior citizens. During Senior Citizens’ Month we applaud all seniors across Ontario who continue to grow as individuals.

I hope that each member will join me in celebrating Senior Citizens’ Month by encouraging the organization of, and personally participating in, activities in his or her community.

RESPONSES

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) fails completely to recognize the Woods Gordon report which found the Cambridge Memorial Hospital to be well run, well managed and cost-effective. Furthermore, she totally refuses to recognize what a dynamic hospital should be, responding to the phenomenal growth in the residential sector of the Cambridge community.

The actions of this minister remind me of a day long past, of an old schoolmarm who is having difficulties with her students, who has chaos in the classroom, and she hits on the idea of whipping an individual student, willy-nilly. It does not matter whether it is the right one, but, “Let’s make an example, even if it is the best and the brightest.” Cambridge Memorial Hospital was one of the best cost-effective hospitals in the province.

1400

The poor, unfortunate schoolmarm. The student who has been whipped knows that what has been carried out is wrong; those who witnessed the punishment know that what has been carried out is wrong, and that poor, unfortunate school teacher, acting in this way, knows in her heart and soul that what she has done is wrong.

We have a hospital whose cost-effectiveness is $81 less than that of the average hospital of its size. We have a hospital whose cost-effectiveness has saved this government $49 million over the last four years. The minister is trying to remove the chaos, and what does she replace it with? Harsh punishment, indiscriminately meted out unjustifiably.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to react to the statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) on the new projects approved out of the Premier’s Council technology fund.

While the individual projects are to be commended, there are serious concerns that have to be raised in terms of the overall thrust of this program, and why this program is not being used to look at the whole economy of this province and instead is being focused on high technology. We have very important industry in basic industries and in our raw materials and resource development that have to be attacked in this province and further developed.

The Premier’s Council is there to encourage our international competitiveness. Surely one of those areas is in the resource sector in northern Ontario, but again we have nothing going to the north, nothing going to that sector of the economy, where we desperately need more jobs and more secure, value-added jobs, which have been recommended in previous reports from the Premier’s Council but again have not been acted on.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. B. Rae: It is hard to know what to make of what has taken place in this kind of Star Chamber approach to the Cambridge hospital. The Woods Gordon report that has been referred to already states -- I just want to quote it because I think it is important to get it on the record -- on page 48, “The area of quality of management is not an issue that is contributing to the deficit situation at Cambridge Memorial Hospital.”

It then goes on to say, “Administration is a highly capable, hard-working and dedicated group. The hospital is well kept and operated and the statistical and financial information available for decision-making is outstanding.”

It is just impossible to square this with what the minister has said today, and we are going to have to investigate as to why the results of the two inquiries are so totally different from one another.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond briefly to the statement that has been made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) speaking in his capacity as the minister responsible for women’s issues.

It is, of course, important for the public to be informed and it is important for the public to receive the kind of information that is being made available, but I say to the minister that I do not encounter from the public a sense that the information is not available. The people who come to see me and who write me are those women who are waiting in line, waiting in order to get into a centre, waiting for a place to live. The uncertainty of funding of the rape crisis centres, which is an enormous problem across the province, results in people having to come cap in hand every year for support from this government.

I think it is the height of irresponsibility for a government to be carrying out an information campaign saying, “Come and see us. Be aware, there are these services available,” when the reality is that the services are not that available. The reality is that the services are, like all services given by this government, severely rationed. It is a government of waiting lists. All the minister is doing is adding one more group to yet another waiting list.

Mr. Jackson: I would like to respond to the announcement of the minister responsible for women’s issues about the public awareness campaign for sexual assault.

I too would like to indicate that this government clearly gets high marks for publicity and clothing itself in these wonderful advertising campaigns but does not score well in terms of managing this most serious social issue in this province.

We have a crisis in terms of stabilized staffing arrangements in our rape crisis centres in this province. We had two centres that were in jeopardy of closing which received only interim funding so that they could survive during the course of this campaign. I am referring most notably to the Kenora and Oshawa centres. The Sault Ste. Marie centre has closed.

The fact is that the government has an embargo on a stable staffing formula in this province, and our party, for one, has clearly made a statement that we want that embargo lifted and we want a stabilized staffing formula established for the rape crisis and intervention services that are provided for women and children who are the victims of this abuse.

This is the Kingston centre. It is well documented; we are spending six times as much on the perpetrators as we are on the victims of these violent crimes in Ontario.

We want a strong management approach out of this government on this issue, not more advertising campaigns with its name on it. What we need is action for those women and stable support for interval houses and rape crisis centres, and we need that action now.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond briefly to the statement today by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). She goes to great lengths to point out that the majority of hospital boards in the province do not operate the way Cambridge Memorial Hospital did.

I can tell the minister, and I am sure she is aware, that some 90 out of 222 hospitals in the province do indeed have deficits, many of them through no problems of their own. They are in rapid-growth areas, like Cambridge Memorial, or they are regional hospitals, such as St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins, and they have some justifiable reasons for having deficits, if they are going to provide essential health care services to the people in the area of the province that they serve.

With all due respect to the minister, with respect to her comment about getting prior ministry approval, it might be helpful if the minister and the ministry were not some two years behind in the case of some approvals with respect to programs and facilities that are needed at various hospitals across the province.

The Woods Gordon report, which the government paid for and endorsed, identifies the special circumstances of Cambridge Memorial. It’s very hard to rationalize some of the conclusions that the Woods Gordon report comes to with the report of the ministry’s special investigator.

What about the other 21 operational reviews in Ontario? Both opposition parties have asked the minister repeatedly over the course of the last several weeks to table those reviews. The minister has had them in her ministry for some two months now, since March 31; it is now May 31. I think it is about time she made that information public.

Perhaps she should respond to every hospital that she did a review of in the same way and with the same quickness that she has done with Cambridge Memorial, because I think the people of Ontario deserve it; certainly the hospital administrators and boards across the province deserve it. Surely we are all trying to do the same thing, and that is to provide first-class health care to the majority of Ontarians.

SENIOR CITIZENS’ MONTH

Mr. Cousens: The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party believes that every month is seniors’ month, but we are especially glad that the month of June is set aside to recognize our senior citizens, who have contributed so much to make this a province of which we are all proud. We saw 700 or so names submitted for the honour achievement, and it is good that 21 people will at least be recognized next Monday night.

I think the challenge is for all of us to continue to recognize our seniors, listen to them, let them be part of our community, let them be part of our counsel and allow them to live with dignity and to continue to play the important role they can in our society. I think that is something we should all continue to work towards.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Sterling: I would like to speak with regard to the statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter). It says: “The Premier’s Council, which is made up of leaders of the labour, business and academic communities, is a sterling example of the spirit of co-operation which must exist between key players in the Ontario economy if we are to maintain our present level of prosperity.”

I do not know if that is true, bull do know that the grant today to Calmos Systems Inc. of Kanata is a sterling example. I do know that the grant today to Mosaid Technologies Inc. of Kanata is a sterling example.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: Most of all, I do know that the grant today to the semiconductor division of Mitel Corp. of Kanata is also a sterling example.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions for the Minister of Health, partly arising out of her report today and partly arising out of the continuing situation facing many patients as well as many hospitals in the province.

Can the minister tell us just how she explains the incredible discrepancy between the comments made by Mr. Stoughton with respect to the management of the hospital and the comments that are contained in the Woods Gordon report? How does she square those two documents, which are totally the opposite of one another when it comes to that question?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have chosen an approach, which is to work with the hospitals on an individual basis where we determine that there are some administrative problems. One of the things that is pointed out is that there is a difference between running an efficient hotel operation and managing the resources of a hospital, in seeking approval in advance from the ministry before adding staff, expanding programs and starting new programs. The approach we have taken is to work with the hospitals on an individual basis to help them manage the resources that the ministry approves for them.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Good for you.

Mr. B. Rae: I see the minister is getting approval from her seatmate the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who obviously approves of this kind of draconian approach.

Hon. Mr. Scott: She certainly is; she’s doing a great job.

[Applause]

Mr. B. Rae: I appreciate the applause.

First of all, the minister did not answer my question. This report on the Cambridge Memorial Hospital is now a matter of public record and it is a report which the minister has absolutely failed either to endorse or significantly comment on.

I would like to ask the minister, if I may, about another report which was presented to the Northwestern General Hospital and sent to Mr. Walker. It has been made available to us by the Northwestern General Hospital, since the ministry instructed all hospitals to make their documents available in reading rooms.

This report says there are things the hospital can do to reduce its deficit. They can charge people more for parking, they can charge more for dietary and they can charge the Ontario health insurance plan for pre-admission testing rather than charge the hospital for testing once a patient is admitted. So by changing the date of admission on a patient, one can charge OHIP for the system rather than charge the hospital.

Even with those changes, the hospital is proposing today to come in with a deficit of $1 million and it says there is no way it feels it can reduce that deficit any further without curtailing services to patients at an unacceptable level.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: The key question to the minister is this: This is a pattern across the province. The minister has her victim here. She has her conclusions on the wall with respect to the Cambridge Memorial Hospital. What is she going to do for the other hospitals -- now over 90 -- that are still projecting a deficit, that are in discussion with the ministry and that feel the only way they can further reduce the deficit --

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

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is not often that I agree with my critic from the third party or with his approach, but today he said -- and I agree with him -- that we all have the same goals. We all want to have what we can afford in our communities in a well-managed, first-class health care system. I agree with that.

We have taken two approaches. One is to throw money at it and let the hospitals act independently and have the open-ended health care system the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) is suggesting. The other is to take our resources, make sure we use them as efficiently and as effectively as we can and work with the individual hospitals, the majority of which manage their budgets and work very closely with the ministry to provide excellent services to their community.

That is our approach, and I appeal for the support and the assistance of the Leader of the Opposition to manage the resources that we are given.

Mr. B. Rae: I say again to the minister, if she is waiting for support from us for reducing care to patients, whether it is in hospital, at home or anywhere in this province, she is going to be waiting for a very, very, very, very, very long time. It is simply not going to happen.

We have had discussions with some hospitals that have been prepared to come forward, some hospitals that, having given us information, then say: “Do not use our name because we will be punished by the minister and by the ministry. We will be singled out by the minister and the ministry in the same way that took place at Cambridge.” This is precisely what we are told.

When it comes to the Northwestern General Hospital, it is planning to close 26 beds for the summer. They have told me specifically that the only way those beds can be opened up again in September is if the ministry is prepared to increase funding to that hospital as per the very specific recommendations made by the Woods Gordon report, which calls for an increase in base funding for Northwestern hospital. The minister has to come clean. She cannot keep on punishing hospitals one by one, singling them out one by one.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: She has to tell us. Is she prepared to make sure that hospital beds stay open and that patients have access to health care services or is she determined to see that services are cut? Which is it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: What we know is that there are different levels of administrative expertise. The ministry will offer assistance to those hospitals that require administrative assistance, but the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to create the impression that somehow summer bed closures are new. In fact, every summer there are summer bed closures that coincide with staff holidays. There are also closures at Christmastime and at the March break that coincide with staff holiday time. They also close beds when they paint and when they renovate the facilities.

The Leader of the Opposition is attempting to create an impression which is clearly wrong. We are working with those hospitals to develop plans for managed budgets and balanced budgets. We have increased every hospital budget in this province.

Mr. B. Rae: If flipping things off from hospitals on to OHIP is her idea of efficiency, then I just do not understand what the minister is talking about.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier a question, if I might, on the question of free trade. I wonder if the Premier can tell us, is it the official view of the province that sections 6 and 9 of Bill C-130, which is now being debated in the House of Commons, represent an invasion of provincial jurisdiction. Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will ask the Attorney General to give the member a legal answer to that question.

Mr. Speaker: It has been referred to the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the honourable member looks at section 6, he will see that it is cast as a reservation of powers by the federal government. In other words, they do not assert any power; they simply recite that they have reserved the powers they have under the Constitution.

If he looks at section 9 of the bill, he will find that it does not do anything at all. It simply indicates that the federal government may pass regulations at a subsequent stage of the process. It is in that context that the question has to be approached.

I think the answer is that if section 9 is the first utilization of reserve power, that will become apparent when the regulations are promulgated.

Mr. B. Rae: I know the Attorney General will recall, because of his own experience, that when the constitutional debate took place in 1980-81, several governments across Canada referred the resolution -- before it was passed and before it became law federally, and indeed it was referred by the government of Canada -- to the Supreme Court of Canada before it was passed by the House of Commons.

Does the Attorney General not think the government of Ontario could move a parallel reference to the one that was moved in 1981? Why can the government of Ontario not simply move this reference? I am proposing one to the Attorney General; it is along the lines of the reference that was moved in 1981 and it simply says this:

“If Bill C-130, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America, is passed by the federal Parliament and becomes law, would federal-provincial relationships or the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces and their legislatures be affected and, if so, in what respect or respects?”

That was the type of question referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1981. It was referred long before the constitutional resolution was passed by the House of Commons. If he is really opposed to this bill, if it casts a dark cloud and if it represents a “constitutional change,” to use the words of his own brief, if that is true, and that is what he really feels --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: -- then why can he not move a reference similar to the one moved in 1981?

1420

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the honourable member had understood the answer I tried to give to the first question, it is, frankly, that there is no implication for power in the legislation as it stands without the regulations that are contemplated under section 9. But let me be more direct with the honourable member and tell him, as I have tried to make plain to the questioners over the last couple of days, that we have done this audit, which is designed to measure potential impacts over the life of a free trade agreement, some of which may occur early in the agreement and some of which may occur at later stages of the agreement. I think that has been a useful and an unprecedented exercise in this country.

Now that we have the bill, perhaps the first of a series of free trade bills, which does not enact the free trade agreement but simply deals with some federal legislation and sections 6 and 9, we want to canvass very carefully all the options that are available to the province. I would be very glad to take under advisement the proposal that the honourable member has made.

Mr. B. Rae: This is the ultimate copout. When the government of Newfoundland objected to the Constitution in 1981, it did not examine all the options, it at least had the courage to go forward, as did the government of Manitoba --

Hon. Mr. Scott: That’s why it lost the case.

Mr. B. Rae: The Attorney General says it lost the case. That is not true.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It did, because it considered all the options.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: Since the Attorney General has heckled and said they lost the case, perhaps he should reflect on that and recognize that the Supreme Court of Canada said in 1981, with respect to conventions, that there are very important conventions that are quite separate from the legalities of the situation, that it was the provincial governments’ going forward that effected a further change in the Constitution and made it a far more consensual document than originally proposed by the government of Canada and supported by the government of Ontario. The Attorney General ought to know that before he makes such a cheap shot from his chair.

Again by way of question to the Attorney General tell us: If this legislation is an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States; if it reserves certain powers to the federal government, which has been described by his leader as casting a dark cloud over Canada; if the document and the implementing legislation represent a constitutional change, to use the words of the Attorney General of Canada --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. B. Rae: -- does he not share the view of the Supreme Court of Canada back in 1981 that if the government of Canada is to make a constitutional change, either by the introduction of a Charter of Rights or by means of free trade legislation, that change should be accompanied by a serious constitutional discussion in this country and by amendments to the Constitution itself?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think I agree with the honourable member in at least one respect. I think there should be a serious discussion in the country about the potential impacts of free trade, not only for the federal government but for all provinces and for all our industries and consumers. I am proud to say I think our Premier, vilified in some quarters, no doubt, has led that exchange of views, and I am proud to be associated with him.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It’s all hot air.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the member does not want to listen to the answer --

Mr. Speaker: New question.

An hon. member: It’s an easy way out to say we don’t want to listen.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I’m not going to waste my breath. You ask a question and then rant and rave.

An hon. member: We wouldn’t want you to waste anything.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, has this exchange been concluded? If they care to keep on speaking, I am quite prepared to give up the floor.

My question is for the Premier. The Premier will recall that in the most recent Ontario budget there was a section referring to the free trade agreement, which indicated as follows: “The government is opposed to the Canada-US trade deal.” The document went on to say, “We expect the federal government to play a key role in providing special assistance to those who will be dislocated by these forces of change.”

I would like to compare that, if I might, to the recent Quebec budget. There are numerous references in the Quebec budget relative to the free trade agreement. What it says in that budget, contrary to the words of the Treasurer in the Ontario budget, is that this agreement opens up enormous possibilities for Quebec firms. Such companies must take advantage of this challenge. The government intends to adopt all the means at its disposal to enable Quebec to derive the maximum benefit from free trade.

Since the Premier does not intend to fight the free trade deal on the basis of the answers to questions we have received in this House, why would the government of Ontario not prepare for the deal and take the lead that has been established by Quebec in trying to maximize the benefits to the workers and to the industries of the people of Ontario’?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I note that my honourable friend has a number of premises in his question that are absolutely false and incorrect. That being said, this government has been preparing this province to be competitive globally for the last two or three years. I do not know where my honourable friend has been, very frankly, when he looks at the things we have done with the centres of excellence, with the technology fund announced, with the things in the budget and with the assistance for research and development personnel. I do not want to be unkind, but where has he been? We are two or three years ahead of my honourable friend.

Mr. Brandt: I would only add, with respect to the comments made by the Premier, that he certainly is not three years ahead of our party when we have called upon him and his government to provide assistance that is required in the case of the wine industry and the grape industry in the Niagara area and where he completely shuffled that off as being of no importance whatever to the industry in that area. He completely passed that aside as though it were of no importance and paid it no heed, recognizing full well that it is one of the industries that has been very clearly identified as being in need in this province of some form of adjustment assistance.

In light of the fact that in the Quebec budget they have clearly identified that there are some areas where workers and industries will require some assistance and some period of adjustment, and recognize the benefits of the deal as well, while the Premier has consistently bad-mouthed the deal and indicated how negatively he feels about it and has indicated no specific action whatever on how Ontario can prosper under this particular trade arrangement --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: -- what is the Premier prepared to do?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member asked the same question in not quite as articulate a way as he did the very first time. Where has he been? We have been working on the competitiveness of this province in a variety of different ways -- be it in capital formation, deregulation or the financial industry -- to turn us into global players, all over the objections of some. We have been working with the wine industry, and I can tell him those are problems, frankly, that his government, if anybody, created and we had to deal with those problems.

Because of commitments given by his government to other governments that were unilaterally broken, Ontario had a credibility problem with some of these international players and that is one of the reasons these things came on. My honourable friend would know that and my honourable friend, as a former minister of the crown, would know that because everybody else knows it.

He is not recognizing or not understanding what is going on in this province. We believe Ontario has a role to be globally competitive, and the globe, to the best of my knowledge, still includes the United States. We are in the United States, we are enjoying a massive trade surplus there and we will continue to trade there; but we do believe this deal is not in the national interest. We believe we got nothing out of this deal but we gave a great number of levers that we have to control our own economy. We believe we have brought the Americans to the table and they are going to be sitting watching over our shoulder every single decision we make in this country.

My honourable friend has not read the deal. He does not understand what is at stake here. If he would go beyond the baloney and the rhetoric handed to him by his federal kissing cousins, I would say my friend would come to the same view we have on this matter.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier can indicate that he is the only one who has the grasp of this document, but I tell him with the greatest of respect that he walks virtually alone in Canada with his position, because eight out of 10 premiers in this great country of ours have agreed that his position is wrong. He talks about competitiveness. When the Premier raises the issue of competitiveness, it is interesting to note that the government of Quebec, in recognizing the need to be competitive in an environment in which Canada and the United States are going to enter into a trade pact, lowered its taxes in the last provincial budget.

1430

Now, as the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) sits beside the Premier, I want to ask how in the world, in any kind of economic analysis that he might want to take, does the largest tax grab in the history of this province put Ontario in a more competitive position? That is absolute nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend gets wound up in his own rhetoric, but since he is talking about tax grabs, 1981 was a bigger tax grab, proportionally, and he used to stand up and --

Mr. Brandt: It is not rhetoric. It is fact.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend does not understand growth and economies, but I do not want to disagree with my friend, except to say he is right that Quebec lowered its taxes and our taxes are still substantially lower than Quebec’s.

I say to my friend I do not want to stand up here and gloat and try to take credit for something. We tend to be a modest government, but this economy in Ontario is enjoying the highest growth in the industrialized world today. Since my friend is so anxious to blame us for all the problems that are here, he may want to stand up and give this government credit for economic leadership and say that this Treasurer understands the future and is preparing for it, as he has in this last budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and I would just like to say to her that the only reason Ontario has the lowest taxes of any province in the entire country, and has taxes which are significantly lower than those of Quebec, is 42 years of Conservative government.

That is the only reason. The government started with the lower tax rates it continues --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Brandt: The government cannot tell me it has lowered taxes. They will be thrown out of the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. New question.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: I would like to point out to the Minister of Health that Riverside Hospital of Ottawa has an unapproved program in which it performs medically legal autopsies. The costs of those particular autopsies, I believe, is about $400 per autopsy and they perform about 250 a year.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), through the coroner’s office, pays some $50 of that $400. To meet its deficit, it is going to have to stop doing that particular service. The chief coroner has said that they will, as a result of that, quadruple existing costs and the difference in the cost will have to be made up by the taxpayers of this province.

To satisfy the minister’s demand for a balanced budget in that particular hospital, Riverside will refuse to do any further autopsies and that will cost the taxpayers of this province an additional $300,000 a year. Does that make sense to the minister in terms of good management; good administration; well-planned, well-managed hospitals, and well-managed provincial dollars?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The leader of the third party raises a very good point. As he knows, Riverside Hospital is one of the 22 which are under review. We are working with the hospitals individually to determine a number of things. One is where there are unapproved programs. Secondly, where, in the ministry’s view, there were needed programs in the community and the ministry has not appropriately responded -- or a program that we approved that we did not appropriately fund -- we would make those kinds of adjustments.

This is part of our plan. We are working closely with the hospitals and the leader of the third party points out one hospital which we are reviewing at the present time.

Mr. Brandt: Just so the minister will not think it is an isolated case, I will give her a second hospital. The concern that I have got is that she is not making the adjustments that I am pointing out to her.

St. Joseph’s Hospital in Sarnia has an unapproved, unfunded program where it performs lab services for the doctors in that area at a cost of some $60,000 annually. To meet the minister’s requirement of a balanced budget, it has been advised to cut this service. The Ontario health insurance plan will now pay for that particular service, quite legal and approved -- in fact, not even requiring her approval -- at an annual cost of some $382,700.

Does it make sense to her that a program which she is going to cut, on the one hand, in the amount of $60,000, is going to cost close to $400,000, on the other hand, and that additional cost is going to be borne by the taxpayers of this province? Does that make good management and good administrative sense to her?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It makes good management sense to me that the ministry approve before hospitals spend. That is what we are talking about. Where we find, on the one hand, that the ministry has approved programs or has not acknowledged needs in the community, we are working with those hospitals to do that. Where, on the other hand, we find that hospitals have expanded services without ministry approval, we are working to bring those services in line with ministry approval.

The message is that we want the hospitals to work very closely with us because we all have the same goal; that is, quality of care and good management.

Mr. Brandt: I fail to differ with the minister on this particular point.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: I must differ with the minister on this point, I should say.

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: Let me make it clear, in case there is some misunderstanding, I must differ with the minister on this point. Are members not going to applaud that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to hear. Final supplementary, please.

Mr. Brandt: Those two programs alone are going to cost the taxpayers some additional $600,000 in two hospitals as a result of not being able to get funding approval from the minister and her staff. Those hospitals recognize, as do the 222 hospitals across this province, that as a result of the delays in the ministry approval it takes about two years for them to get approvals for many of the programs they wish to introduce.

Does it make sense to the minister that for that kind of lengthy delay in the approval process, recognizing that in the hundreds of cases that we could bring to her attention of similar problems across the province, the cost will add up to literally millions of dollars in unnecessary payments by the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We know that one of the causes of those delays has been the practice in the past, and I am hearing that from the good managers who bring in balanced budgets and want to work with the ministry. Picking up deficits across the board does not give any incentive for good management and in fact jeopardizes the whole planning process. We are saying to the hospitals: “Work with us. There are lots of problems. We know there are problems. It is going to take us some time to resolve all of those problems.”

We are saying that if we work with them on an individual basis, we can provide them with the administrative assistance they may need. We know that we can address those problems and those issues, which will lead to fair funding for hospitals and balanced budgets. We believe that quality of care, which is so important to the people of this province, and good management go hand in hand. The way to get that is by working with the ministry, because we all have the same goal.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Premier. Given the strength of his words earlier today, is he prepared to level with the people of Ontario on the free trade issue, which is of real concern to our citizens? Will the Premier tell the people the truth as to what he is prepared to do to see that the sellout of Canadian workers and Canadian sovereignty is not allowed to happen through this current free trade agreement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yes.

Mr. Mackenzie: The Premier may think that is a smart response.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why should the people of Ontario believe the Premier and his government when they will not outline any specific steps to oppose the sellout and when they have backed off or repudiated almost every bottom-line argument that they used to buy votes in the last election? Is it because they have no idea of what line they will take or because they have no intention of really fighting this agreement down to the wire?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It may not be clear to my friend opposite, but I think it is clear to everyone else. I think the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) pointed out some of the legal problems. There are a number of legal aspects to this deal and all are being canvassed at this moment.

We stand unequivocally opposed to this deal. We do not believe it is in the national interest. We believe that we have achieved nothing and we gave away a great deal as a country, so it is being analysed from a legal point of view and we will share our approach with the member at the appropriate time.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Education. On April 29, I asked for information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act relating to the capital allocations made to school boards across the province. Why has the minister refused me this information?

Hon. Mr. Ward: No information has been refused.

Mr. Sterling: Under the act, if the minister would care to read the act, if there is no response to a member of the public within 30 days, that is deemed to be a refusal under the legislation. I, along with 100 other people in the province, have now been either refused access or given access which is not adequate.

My last request of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) took 80 days to get a verbal response and I let that one go by. I have no alternative in this case but to appeal this refusal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner so that I can get some action for a change.

If the government reacts this way to an elected member of this Legislature, how does it expect the rest of the public to believe it is serious about freedom of information?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I will repeat for the member that no specific information relative to the capital allocation process has been denied to the member. In fact, I will indicate to the member here and now, in response to his request that he be provided with the specific criteria used in making determinations as to capital projects, that I would be happy to make available to the member or to any other member, to any of the opposition caucuses, whatever staff they require from my ministry to run through with them the process that is utilized in the capital allocation process, and I am happy to do that at any time.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch).

Mr. Sterling: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I made a specific request in writing, as required under the act. The minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member asked a question and a supplementary, and a response was made.

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. There has been much discussion in my riding and in the press about the financial situation and the possibility of program cuts at Niagara College.

Could the minister inform me and this House as to the current status of the budget preparation for Niagara College for the next academic year?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I appreciate the fact that the honourable member is concerned about the status of Niagara College and I know his concern is shared by other members from the area, so I am happy to respond to that question of status.

I know the honourable member is well aware of some of the difficult realities which Niagara has been coping with, including a 10 per cent reduction in its enrolment and including a 50 per cent cutback in direct purchases for the federal skills training program. As a result of those specific difficulties, the Niagara College board of governors did prepare an initial budget, and that budget was an attempt to deal with the deficit situation it was facing.

Because that budget required staff cutbacks in excess of some five per cent of the staff, it triggered the declaration of a financial exigency. This is a requirement that the ministry has. During this period of time they have sought the suggestions and comments of the faculty at Niagara College, of the students and of the community generally. This process has taken place.

The Niagara board of governors and its executive committee will now be reviewing the recommendations that have been made, as well as suggestions, and I hope helpful suggestions, that have been made by ministry staff which has been in close consultation with Niagara. We expect them to have prepared a revised budget within the next week to two weeks, and that will be shared with the ministry.

Mr. Dietsch: I realize that the final decision regarding the financial plan of Niagara College is a decision of the college board of governors, but could the minister please indicate how the college is required to account to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: There is and always has been, of course, a requirement that there would be regular external audits carried out at least once a year, and this is a basic method of accountability. It may be of interest as well that we have recently, within the last year, instituted two other methods by which we both become more aware of the colleges’ planning processes and concerns and also have a process by which the colleges are accountable.

One of these is an annual report on the part of the college to the minister. Those reports are very carefully analysed and responded to individually. The other is that we do ask each of the colleges to carry out an operational review and every area of the college operation has to be reviewed every three years. Essentially, the operational reviews are going on on a continuous basis, with one third of the college’s operations being reviewed every year. We believe this is a method by which we can effectively look at the management and the planning processes for the colleges.

Mr. B. Rae: I also have some questions for the minister about the same subject of Niagara College, which I visited on Friday and spoke both to the board and the faculty about the situation.

The minister will be aware that there are seven courses which are being proposed by the board to be cancelled, including the bilingual secretary course, the theatre arts course, the dental hygiene course, college vocational, mechanical technician, library technician and survey technician courses.

The minister will be aware, I know, that there is a procedure which her ministry requires be followed very specifically by institutions when they are going to cancel courses. There are students who are lined up. There are 400 students lined up for the dental hygiene course. There are nearly 100 students lined up for the theatre arts course, one of the few in Canada providing technical training for students in the theatre field.

I would like to ask the minister whether the college complied with her requirements before issuing a cancellation notice. Can the minister assure us that these programs, which are fully booked in terms of students, which are indeed oversubscribed in terms of students, which fulfil an important community need and indeed a national need, will not be cancelled by the college pursuant to the cutbacks in funding from the province?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I can certainly assure the member that the college has complied with all the requirements of the ministry. The college board of governors and its administration have been in very close consultation with the ministry from the time they became aware of the kinds of adjustments they were going to have to make in their budget and the implications that would have.

As I have just indicated in the earlier question, they have been in the process of having notified the college community of the proposals in the original budget. They have been seeking the input from the college faculty and students. They are now reviewing that and they will be presenting their final proposals to the ministry within a very short period of time.

I certainly cannot make assurances in regard to the specific course proposals because that will be a part of the college board of governors recommendations.

Mr. Swart: The minister knows very well that unless there are funding changes made there are going to be cutbacks in programs at Niagara College. That is true of many colleges throughout this province, particularly those in the slow-growth areas.

The minister knows this means that options available to students will be reduced. She knows it means that students will have to go elsewhere and those who cannot afford it will, in fact, be drop-outs from Niagara College. I simply want to ask the minister about the bottom line. Is she prepared to see these young people go without the training that would ensure jobs for them?

1450

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: The honourable member has referred to something called slow-growth areas. I think that tends to neglect the reality of the declining enrolment situation which Niagara College has been experiencing over the past four years. It has had a decline in its enrolment of some 10 per cent. We do expect all the colleges to adjust their budgets in relationship to changes in enrolment. I have given the House many indications of the process by which we do that.

I would like to take a moment to reference the fact that the honourable member is asking about the process of some degree of rationalization of courses among the colleges. The fact is that the colleges over a period of time have evolved some very specialized courses which we would not intend to offer in every college across the province.

We have asked the Council of Regents, our advisory body, to make some recommendations to us on the whole process of concentration of courses in the colleges. I anticipate in the future there will be no question that the primary mandate of the colleges will be to respond to their particular communities and the needs of their students and that colleges will continue to do that, as Niagara is currently doing.

MINISTRY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

Mrs. Marland: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Over the last three years, his ministry’s administrative costs have increased by 65 per cent, while total spending on the environment has increased by only half as much. Also, for the last two years, the minister has consistently underspent his budget allocations on capital projects such as water and sewer infrastructure, beaches cleanup and waste management facilities.

Why is the Ministry of the Environment’s spending on sharpening pencils and pushing paper climbing at a faster rate than its overall spending on cleaning up the environment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think any objective observer in Ontario or probably anywhere in this country who has observed the performance of the Ministry of the Environment prior to this government and now would come to the conclusion that there is far more happening to provide improvement to the environment in Ontario than has ever happened before.

One of the things the Premier wanted to ensure when the new government took office was that the Ministry of the Environment would receive the kind of treatment it deserves; in other words, it would be elevated in terms of its priority. That has certainly happened since the new government has taken office.

The member mentioned that the expenditures have gone up. They have gone up substantially in terms of actual dollars, if one looks at the actual dollars. The member can play around with percentages all she wants, one little corner here and one little corner there. In terms of actual dollars and cents spent on cleaning up the environment, there has been a substantial increase in the money devoted specifically to cleaning up the environment in Ontario.

Mrs. Marland: I would like the minister to listen very carefully to this question because I am not talking about his programs. I am talking about the administrative costs of running his office. I am talking about supplies, equipment and personnel. I am talking about what it costs to run his offices and the fact that those dollars are up so much, whereas his own capital allocation was not spent.

Since he did not answer my question the first time, I would appreciate his answering the question now. Why have his administrative costs accelerated at double the rate of his overall costs to protect the environment? Where is his priority?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member again wants to pick out specific areas where she is going to look at percentages. I am going to tell her, for one thing, as she knows, in her own office probably, as a member of the opposition she is computerizing. Members of the Legislature are computerizing.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is not true.

Mr. Harris: No. we are not. That has been cancelled.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Well, it is. It is in the members’ own offices, and they know it.

The member wants things to be as efficient as possible. To be efficient, we must make an investment in the computerization program right across the government, including members of the opposition.

The member talked about actual dollars. She is going to play with these little figures. When I was in opposition, I did the same thing, so I cannot blame her for this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the minister would disregard the interjections. I know all members know interjections are out of order. Address your comments to the response.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I used to do this all the time when I was in the opposition, to pick all these out.

The member wants an answer to this. If she looks most particularly at the actual dollars spent -- not throwing out a percentage here, there and everywhere else -- she will find out in the Ministry of the Environment that the tremendous increase in the actual dollars spent, the amount of money spent, has come in direct delivery of services to the environment.

If the member wants us to be living in the 19th century in terms of computerization and so on, when members of the opposition and all members of the House are involved in computerization, I do not think the people --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. A couple of weeks ago, I received a rather interesting letter from a young student in my area. It reads as follows:

“In school, we have been talking about poaching. We say that people from the USA are coming here to Canada to kill our animals because there, punishment is very strict, but ours is not strict at all.

“I have written to Mr. Mulroney already, but he did not do anything but write me a letter. Please talk to Mr. Mulroney for me. I want there to be animals when my children and grandchildren grow up.”

Since Mr. Mulroney was not available, I thought I should talk to the Minister of Natural Resources instead.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Daigeler: Could the minister inform this House whether there is a problem with poaching by people from other countries and how he is enforcing the law at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: When I hear Mr. Mulroney’s name connected with poaching, it gives me a great opening, but I will not take advantage.

The fact of the matter is that I feel, as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) does, that we have now finally decided that we are going to protect wildlife and all the resources in Ontario like never before.

If I had a message to deliver to that young person, I would say to her that it is very disturbing that there are people who would take advantage of our resources and not be law-abiding and do what has to be done within the regulations.

We have some 241 conservation officers and some 500 deputy conservation officers. We have very recently charged a group that was hunting moose out of Vermilion Bay with aircraft a $24,000 fine, the highest fine ever on the North American continent. We subsequently charged them some $16,000 in connection with other areas that have just as much impact on our resources as the first one and impounded their three aircraft.

I would like the message to go back to that young individual that if Mr. Mulroney is doing nothing about it, Ontario is doing a great deal about it, like never before.

Mr. Daigeler: I am certainly very pleased the minister has taken action, but in this context I would still like to ask whether he feels he has sufficient legal authority at hand. The student is referring to strict laws that apparently are in place in the United States. Does the minister feel our legislation, our regulations, are strict enough or is he pursuing further changes to the legislation presently in place?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think the public is not aware of some of the things that are happening. We charged some 15,000 offenders last year and I think we had about 7,000 convictions.

In addition to that, I think the thing that is going to protect the resource more than anything else -- and our young people should share this with us -- is our community fisheries involvement program and our community wildlife involvement program, where we encourage the general public to participate in helping to manage our resource and to begin to feel that they are a part of it because they put time and money into it. They are going to help us police the poaching that goes on and reduce it, I think, because there will be a very personal interest in some of the things that are happening with the fishing and hunting clubs and generally with citizens across this province who take advantage of a very good program of community involvement.

When our people begin to realize that the resource belongs to all of us, I think they will be very helpful in weeding out those people who would poach and take from the resource –

1500

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question

NATIONAL SALES TAX

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer concerning a speech he made last Thursday to the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association. He was quoted as saying he thinks the idea of a national sales tax is a fair tax, it is up front, it is democratic and people know where it comes from.

I wonder if the Treasurer understands that the national sales tax is so fair, so democratic and so up front that the federal Tories are waiting till after the next federal election before they bring in that aspect of tax reform. Can the Treasurer tell us why he is such a willing handmaiden to the federal Conservatives in this gross deception of the Canadian people?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: As I recall the actual words spoken, I was referring to our own sales tax and why I was not anxious to go into a national sales tax situation.

Interjection.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have not even read what the member is reading. I said our own tax is democratic, up front and actually quite productive, so I am not looking for an alternative particularly. But I said the initiative taken by the government of Canada is one we would have to consider seriously because it would be of advantage to the manufacturers who had brought it to me in their brief before the budget. I wanted to respond to the brief they had presented to me, in which they indicated their interest in tax reform, particularly phase 2. I thought it was only natural that I respond to that, as I was their guest under those circumstances.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps the Treasurer could be more specific as to what his views on a national sales tax are and to what extent he feels the province would co-operate in such a regime. More specifically, can the Treasurer tell us whether he believes a national sales tax is more or less progressive than the income tax, which is the base of most of our tax collection now?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is obviously less progressive, but it would be up to the provinces participating -- just as it is now, for provinces which have sales tax -- to remove as much of the regressivity as possible by using the imaginative alternatives which are so constructively at work in this province to mitigate the bad effects of the sales tax we have.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister is no doubt aware that 55 employees of Catulpa-Tamarack Child and Family Services in Orillia have been negotiating a contract for approximately two years. An earlier contract offer was withdrawn by management after it had already been ratified by these employees, who serve more than 600 clients. Since that time, the situation deteriorated to the point where these workers walked off the job at 7:30 a.m. today. This facility is 95 per cent funded by the minister’s government. I would like to know if he will intervene to see that a contract is negotiated which will be acceptable to all of the parties involved in this dispute.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The last I heard was that the request for an increase was in the neighbourhood of about 25 per cent. I can clearly say to the member, as we have indicated to the agency, that we cannot afford to give them extra money to pay that kind of increase. We have indicated to them that we are prepared to give them an increase similar to what we do others, which is basically the cost of living. In the meantime, we are co-operating with the agency to see to it that their clients are looked after.

Mr. McLean: The minister will be well aware that the employees there are well below the pay scale of most others in the same category who do the same work in other areas of his ministry. Why will the minister not pay these workers the same amount that is paid in the Huronia Regional Centre and other institutions across the province? Why is it that they are funded so much below what the others are?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There is a differential between what community agencies are paying their staff and what the ministry pays its staff in institutions. That is all across the province; that is not just in this particular agency. The honourable member will be aware of the fact that we are presently initiating a program to provide additional services, particularly to the developmentally handicapped, in all communities across the province.

We have just this past year crossed the boundary line whereby we are spending more dollars in community services than we are in institutional services. That will increase. As we move an increasing number of people out of institutions and back into the community, we are at the same time drawing the two wage scales closer and closer together, but this cannot happen in one year of negotiation. It is just not possible.

NATURAL GAS SUPPLY

Mr. South: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The National Energy Board has recently approved a gas pipeline extension which will allow the export of 50 million cubic feet of western Canada gas to Rhode Island. There is also pending an additional large-scale request from four other New England states for similar extension into the New England states.

In view of this, in view of the increasing energy demand in this province and in view of the fact that gas would be a good source of energy for generating this electrical energy, is there any move on the part of his ministry to secure western Canada gas for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I would like to thank the honourable member for that question. Long-term natural-gas-supply security is very important to Ontario.

Ontario is not in the business of purchasing natural gas directly for specific end users, but we are taking steps to protect the interests of all Ontario natural gas customers. One specific action which the government took recently was to refer the whole matter of natural gas supply to the Ontario Energy Board for full examination.

Ontario recognizes that supply security is dependent upon a healthy, producing industry. That means that natural gas producers must receive a fair price in order that they can develop new supplies. Since the beginning of natural gas deregulation, the government has been working with industry, the federal government and other provincial governments in order to work towards the enhancement of market access for both producers and consumers.

Last, let me say that we have been active as an intervener before the National Energy Board, specifically with reference to the review of export licence applications, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. South: Is there sufficient gas pipeline capacity to move a reasonable amount of western Canada gas to fuel a large-scale thermal-electrical generating station?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The adequacy of existing pipeline capacity to supply natural gas to an Ontario electrical generating station can only be determined when we know the scope of such a proposal, when this is made available. Upon a customer’s long-term, firm natural gas requirements, TransCanada PipeLines would determine whether it has sufficient facilities in place or not. If not, then it makes an application before the NEB.

In the interests of trying to make sure that adequate facilities are in place for the proper projects, we certainly would be an active intervener.

ONTARIO PLACE CORP.

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs.

We have recently been made aware of the declining attendance and growing deficits at Ontario Place, but it seems shocking that the government and Ontario Place are attempting to overcome the apparent mismanagement of this provincial showplace on the backs of seniors, almost half of whom live below the poverty line.

I understand that the recent admission-rate increases announced in an ad in the Toronto Star, May 14, include removing free admission for seniors on all days except Wednesdays and charging them $3 a day on other days.

I would like to ask the minister if she was consulted by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) or by the Ontario Place management when this incredible change was announced in an ad entitled “Ontario Incredible -- Old-Fashioned Prices.” Does she think this is the way to meet seniors’ recreational and cultural needs?

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

1510

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: The admissions to attractions around the province are certainly something the Office Responsible for Senior Citizens Affairs has been actively involved in discussing with other ministries concerned. I have also recently met with a number of senior citizens’ groups, including the United Senior Citizens of Ontario and the advisory council to the minister, and have asked them for their opinions about the increase in fees.

Currently at Ontario Place, seniors are charged half the regular fee and have Wednesdays as a day when no admission is charged to them. Interestingly, the seniors’ groups were quite in agreement with the decision made by Ontario Place with regard to fees, and I just pass that along to the member.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Algoma.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, there is indeed.

I rise with regard to standing order 88(d).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the members would allow it, I would like to hear the point of order.

The member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: On May 12, 1988, I tabled a question for Orders and Notices. It is question 137. The question was, “Would the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet provide the House with a complete list of all studies, or study drafts, prepared by each ministry concerning the possible effects, in Ontario, of the implementation of the free trade deal between Canada and the United States?”

According to rule 88(d), “The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days unless he indicates that he requires more time because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that he has declined to answer, as the case may be.”

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there has been no indication from the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Elston), or any other member of the Treasury bench either, that they intend not to answer this question, that they cannot currently answer the question or that they intend to answer at some future date. In that case, I believe the government does not obey the orders of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member makes an interesting point and possibly a good point. Does the Chairman of the Management Board wish to make any comment on that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have always tried to abide by the rules of the House, and I am glad the honourable gentleman brought this to my attention. Certainly, May 12, as he indicated, was when he tabled the question. I see that we are out of time by four or five days, and I will look into the reason why we are four or five days tardy in getting it together. It may have been that we have made some inquiries to see how long it will take us to reply.

We do try to make every effort to reply at least on an interim basis and in one case indicated that the activity was so much involved that it would be almost impossible without donating too many resources to it. But I will, in fact, take the notice and get back to the honourable gentleman and to the House to report.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Beer: I have two petitions to present today. The first is signed by 259 persons and reads:

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

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

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Beer: The second petition I have to present is signed by 62 members of the teaching staff of Huron Heights Secondary School in Newmarket. It is addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it states:

“We, the undersigned, teachers of Huron Heights Secondary School oppose the decision to merge the teachers’ superannuation fund and the superannuation adjustment fund and request that the Minister of Education meet with representatives from the teachers’ federation to discuss this issue.”

I have signed both of these.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL RECORDS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a petition signed by several thousand individuals which reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, the working people of the province of Ontario, insist that subsection 77(3) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which reads,

“‘Where there is an issue in dispute, upon request, the board shall grant the employer access to copies of only those records of the board that the board considers to be relevant to the issue or issues in dispute and the board shall provide like access and copies to a representative of the employer upon presentation of written authorization for that purpose, signed by the employer,’

“be replaced with the following,

“‘Where there is an issue in dispute, upon request, the board shall contact the worker and, upon his or her consent, copies of the medical information that the board considers to be relevant to the issue or issues in dispute shall be released to the employer and the worker’s representative.’”

This is a very important issue of confidentiality of medical information and the use to which that information is put by the insurance industry.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition here, signed by approximately 100 residents of the Sarnia area, on behalf of the Redeemer Christian Reform Church. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

“We, the undersigned, appreciate the fact that the government of Ontario will be holding public hearings regarding the issues of Sunday shopping and store openings and public holidays. We request that these hearings be held in centres throughout the province, including Sarnia.”

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: I have a petition from concerned citizens of Cambridge with regard to the pathology and audiology services at the Cambridge Memorial Hospital and in the region of Waterloo. It is addressed 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:

“We wish to express our grave concern regarding the painfully inadequate speech-language pathology and audiology services available to adults in Cambridge and the Waterloo region.

“We are concerned for stroke survivors with limited communication who are condemned to a life of social isolation; for stutterers, many ashamed and unfulfilled, who struggle to cope with life, handicapped by the ball and chain of their fluency problem; for those whose chronic laryngitis limits their employment options and career goals; for cancer patients, totally without speech after losing their voice-box to disease; for those with progressive disease who must witness the steady erosion of their communication skills without supportive therapy to ease the way; for the elderly hearing-impaired, more and more isolated and withdrawn as hearing loss prevents interaction with family and society.

“We strongly urge the Minister of Health to review the speech pathology and audiology proposals submitted by Cambridge Memorial Hospital and the region of Waterloo to improve the availability of this important health service.”

This petition has been signed by 342 individuals. I have attached my name and am happy to support the petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. McLean: “Please be aware of the wishes of concerned persons in regard to the question of Sunday opening which is being debated at this time. Enclosed find copies of petitions from the Coldwater United Church of Canada.”

The petition reads:

“Living in a resort area, we are aware of the necessity of certain businesses being open on Sunday. However, we feel that businesses that are not selling the necessities of life, and industry in general, should be closed on Sunday.

“We, the undersigned, strongly urge the government of Ontario to take on the responsibility and have Sunday closing enforced. Sunday is the Sabbath and has been kept the traditional day of rest and should be kept for the betterment of the family unit and community.”

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 32 residents of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“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:

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I want to point out that there is a split infinitive in that. I have affixed my name to it and I support the petition.

1520

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to present this petition. I wish I did not have to, because it is a subject I really am not happy with. None the less, there are over 250 signatures from Richmond Hill in the riding of York Centre.

“To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

It is so submitted and signed by myself.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I have a petition signed by 64 members of the Armour Heights Presbyterian Church. It reads:

“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:

“We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to changes in Sunday shopping laws which threaten to transform Sunday into just another day for doing business.”

Mr. Charlton: I have a petition from two residents of Ancaster.

Mr. Black: Two?

Mr. Charlton: “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.”

Mr. Jackson: Why didn’t you get them to call?

Mr. Sterling: Is that your riding association?

Mr. Charlton: Do the members think these petitioners are less important than the hundreds?

Mr. Speaker: The petition?

Mr. Charlton: It reads in part:

I have added my name to this petition and I support it.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition addressed “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:

“We ask the government to consider the views of the citizens who have signed letters which read in part as follows:

“‘I am sure you are familiar with the French Language Services Act, Bill 8. I have many concerns regarding the implementation of this act. This act discriminates against 95 per cent of Ontario’s citizens who are English-speaking.

“‘Please let me give you an example of what I mean by quoting to you from an OPP career advertisement. This ad recently appeared in a local newspaper. In part, this ad stated:

“‘If you are fluent in both French and English, the Ontario Provincial Police offers you a change, a challenge and a career in one of its exciting duty categories -- highway, air and water patrol, criminal investigation, forensic science and other interesting and demanding responsibilities.’

“‘This ad discriminates against the vast majority of Ontario residents who can only speak English.’”

That is signed by some 30 residents of the communities of Englehart and Timmins.

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Swart: I have a petition here signed by 315 people. I have added my signature to it. It reads as follows:

“We, the Niagara College community, oppose the threatened closure of programs under option 3 presented to the college board of governors by the president’s executive council.

“We urge the board of governors to question every facet of the college’s operation and to adopt more creative solutions to address our college’s financial and leadership ills.

“There is a need for the college to reaffirm its commitment to its external community, its employees and, most importantly, to the students it serves.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Marland: I, too, have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This petition is signed by 41 members of the Christian Reformed Church of Clarkson at 1880 Lakeshore Road West, Mississauga. These people are stating their very strong opposition.

“We, the undersigned, appreciate the fact that the government of Ontario will be holding public meetings regarding the issue of Sunday shopping. We are opposed to Sunday shopping. We request that these hearings be held in centres throughout the province, including Mississauga.”

I have a second petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario over the signature of Mrs. J. Nevers, store manager, Dixie Clearance Centre. The employees at the Dixie Sears store have all signed the petition against Sunday opening and request support on this issue.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a petition, which reads in part:

“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:

It is signed by one resident of Holbrook Road in Hamilton, and I have signed my name.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GOTTSCHEER RELIEF ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. McCague moved first reading of Bill Pr50, An Act to revive the Gottscheer Relief Association.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt moved nonconfidence motion 2 under standing order 70(a):

That, noting the government’s failure to make a convincing case against the federally negotiated free trade agreement on either economic, legal or constitutional grounds and noting that other provinces are developing economic plans and launching trade missions to the United States to take advantage of the anticipated benefits from this major economic agreement, this House has lost confidence in the Ontario government because of its decided lack of action in developing a strategy to ensure Ontario workers and Ontario business obtain best advantage from the reduction of trade barriers with our largest trading partner.

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I might, at the beginning of this important debate, seek the unanimous consent of the House to share the time among the three parties until approximately five o’clock, when the final round will then be shared equally by the three windup speakers.

Mr. Speaker: I believe there is agreement. I believe that is set out in the standing orders and there is up to 10 minutes for the bell and the vote.

Mr. Sterling: I am pleased today to address this motion of nonconfidence against this government. We in the Conservative Party believe this is a most serious issue and an issue which has been mismanaged by the government of the day.

As our motion states, we have lost confidence in this government due to its “lack of action in developing a strategy to ensure Ontario workers and Ontario business obtain the best advantage from the reduction of trade barriers with our largest trading partner,” the United States.

These are not hollow words. We have before us, embodied in this agreement, the opportunity of access to over 250 million people -- the richest free market in the world. Our only limitations should be our ingenuity, our resourcefulness and our competitive edge, qualities which are found in abundance in our provinces across every sector.

1530

Unfortunately, there is one resource we do not have in this particular debate, which those sectors and businesses and people of Ontario do not have, and that is the current government of Ontario. Our province is championed by a government which states that it favours multilateral trade, increased bilateral trade and increased interprovincial trade. Rather progressive, is it not? Well, not entirely.

From what we have seen in the last six months, it would appear that this government’s support for these initiatives is conditional, meaning that as long as the conditions are favourable to our province alone, they will go for it, but not if the rules are fair and equitable to both sides. Otherwise, this government will take its ball and bat and go home.

For instance, Ontario is supportive of increased multilateral trade and, consequently, supportive of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the body which governs multilateral trade in the modern, industrialized world. Except when GATT makes a ruling that does not go in our favour, as in the case of wine pricing, listing and distribution, where we are found discriminatory, then this government puts its tail between its legs and says it no longer supports GATT.

The government supports a reduction of interprovincial barriers, unless, of course, one is referring to interprovincial barriers with respect to wine, in which case Ontario will balk again.

Again, the government supports a bilateral free trade agreement with the United States, except it does not support this particular agreement. Why? We are not sure, because their logic defies description, not to mention the industry and public opinion across this country, if they would read what all of Canada is talking about.

Let us now try to trace how this nonpolicy on bilateral trade developed. If we go back to last summer and the election campaign, which we remember all too well, I can recall the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stating his six conditions that would be necessary if he were to support a deal with the US. He insisted he would not support an agreement that would weaken the auto pact, that would threaten Canada’s cultural identity, that would remove safeguards for agriculture, that would permit unrestricted foreign investment in Canada, that would prevent reduction of regional economic disparities or that did not include a binding dispute settlement mechanism.

I believe the Premier also included on his list, at a convenient moment some time later, the protection of the brewing industry. These were the Premier’s conditions and, if these conditions were not met, he would veto this agreement single-handedly. His election victory he felt endorsed these bottom-line conditions and this would give him the power to carry out his veto. By October, however, the Premier declared he did not intend to campaign actively against the deal, because he did not want to exacerbate historical and regional tensions. So while the agreement was being negotiated, the Premier could not say what he was going to do, because he had to wait to see what the agreement actually said.

Once he saw the draft, he then said he wanted to wait to see the final text. When the final text was available, he wanted to see the implementing legislation. Now that we have the implementing legislation, we are told that we are going to wait for the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to analyse and scrutinize the act and that the government has many options at its disposal, but none which it is at liberty to discuss, except that it may or it may not put forward a constitutional challenge. Pretty gutsy for a guy who had a veto on September 10.

We now have a constitutional audit of the agreement released by our Attorney General, which looks at the impact of the free trade agreement and not at the provisions of the implementing legislation. That of course will require another audit, which will be disclosed at some undetermined date.

Should I mention that the Premier only has six months left to do something about this? I think somebody should. Just what is the Premier’s bottom line, or does he really have a bottom line? Was he being honest with the people of Ontario on September 10?

The government’s constitutional audit is just the latest of a litany of studies designed to convince Ontarians that the free trade agreement will devastate our province. Previously, we had studies on the ineffectiveness of the dispute settlement mechanism, which was analysed as a domestic contract instead of an international treaty, which in fact it is.

We were given a report by this government on the effect on women, which indicated 100,000 women were in vulnerable job positions as a result of free trade. The report neglected, however, to mention that the important sensitive sectors -- clothing, textiles and footwear -- were also under attack from Third World producers. The study also implied that women involved in these industries would face serious barriers in finding new employment. Is this government implying that these people cannot be retrained, that we cannot upgrade the skills of these people who are involved in low-wage industries so that they can get jobs in higher-paying positions? That is what we want to do in this party.

Then, of course, we had the sectoral and regional sensitivity report on our manufacturing industries, another upbeat piece of information about our manufacturing industries’ inability to compete. Unfortunately, the government did not provide a net employment impact study. It continues to hide the real effects of job loss and job creation on this particular issue. Nowhere has there been a mention of job creation as a result of this deal and the positive impact that business leaders across this country feel it will have on their industries.

Let us not forget the background paper -- yet another one, on market access to the United States -- which determined that Ontario will not have secure access to US markets. I find it strange that eight other provinces across this country feel that they will have improved access, yet our province says that we will not. To obtain secure access to the United States, this government is arguing that we will have to give up our right to apply our own trade remedies; yet this very same government wants that of the United States. It wants it both ways.

This latest constitutional audit implies that provincial sovereignty may be threatened through the federal government’s implementing legislation and that this may infringe on our provincial jurisdiction. That is a very good tactic, I guess, by the Premier. He frightened the electorate last September 10 with all kinds of crazy stories about what free trade would do to them. Now that the antitrade rhetoric of last summer has been shot down and has been proven wrong, he is attempting to do the same thing with other provinces by talking about the loss of jurisdiction they are going to get under this legislation which has been put forward in our federal Parliament.

Fortunately, the other provinces have the good sense to recognize the rhetoric. This is simply rhetoric, and we have heard the four western premiers talk about it.

We recognize that six of the 10 provincial premiers have some reservations about the implementing legislation, but the majority of these provinces will continue to support this agreement. What they have done is address it in a positive manner. They are taking the ball into their court and implementing this particular legislation in their provinces so they will not have the jurisdictional clash which this Premier is begging for.

1540

Frankly, I feel that the Minister for International Trade had little option in drafting this implementing legislation, as he had to ensure provincial compliance with the agreement. I feel that the federal government has the right to make treaties regarding commerce.

I feel that the federal government has taken great care with respect to the jurisdiction of the provinces, and perhaps with regard to our own province, too much. It has made every effort to ensure compliance. It has consulted with this particular government over the period of the negotiation of this particular agreement. Yet this government has continually said, “I want my ball and bat and I am going to go home.”

The override clause is restricted solely to the liquor and wine provisions of the deal. The reality of the situation is that the federal government has sole responsibility for drafting international treaties and should not be held up for ransom by one obstructionist province which has decided, for whatever still unknown reasons or for pure political reasons, to oppose this international initiative.

The Premier has indicated on many occasions that he may challenge this trade deal in the courts. While in the past few days he has softened his stand on that matter, certain implications of such a move should be considered.

The implementing legislation was not drafted to be a federal power grab. Rather, the provinces are offered the chance to comply voluntarily, as the province of Quebec has chosen to do, without heavy-handed direction from Ottawa. Only if a province, as this province appears to be doing, does not comply with Ottawa will it bring upon itself the problem.

If this matter were to go to court, I think the Liberal government knows it would be decided in favour of the federal government, as it must have the power to make international agreements. While the trade legislation limits confrontation to the terms of the agreement, a court challenge might result in a ruling that would extend federal powers more broadly, more explicitly and more permanently.

That is what the other premiers are concerned about, but it is up to this Premier and this government to bring the confrontation. That would not be the preferred situation for the other provinces. Premier Getty and Premier Bourassa would not look kindly upon Ontario’s nationalist Premier should this situation occur, considering the possible impact for all provinces. If the Premier were truly concerned with provincial jurisdiction and not simply wanting to impede this process, he would follow the example set by his Quebec counterpart, Premier Bourassa.

The Premier’s actions are rather suspect for they reverse a long-standing tradition of this province in supporting strong central governments. If I recall correctly, former premiers Davis and Robarts kept federal-provincial conflicts to a minimum. Unfortunately, this Premier and government are intent on exacerbating conflict.

Ontario, thanks to the efforts of the Premier, has isolated itself. The impression has been given that this province opposes free trade. Ontario, the one province in Canada most heavily dependent on trade with the US -- 90 per cent of our exports -- claims that it will get no benefit from this deal. Nobody believes that.

For whom does this government speak on this issue? Where is the source of this mounting opposition for which this government claims to be champion? This government does not listen to the small independent businessmen of this province, 63 per cent of whom believe it would be a good deal. It does not listen to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, 70 per cent of whose members believe it is a good deal. Those percentages are increasing as the days go by. This free trade agreement offers Ontario an opportunity, nothing more. Why are we not assisting our various sectors to capitalize on this opportunity?

I support this agreement. I recognize, however, that it is not a panacea for all sectors of our economy. We will lose some jobs, but for every job we lose, the potential remains for one or more to be gained in other sectors and at better pay. The agreement itself is neither doom nor glory, neither poverty nor wealth. The Premier complains about the rules of this agreement, but the rules themselves rarely create or destroy prosperity. They simply set the stage. We have a government that is not willing to step on to that stage. It is not willing to equip the teams to step on to that stage. We in this caucus are.

We think the time has come for the people of Ontario, now that they have seen the deal, now that they have seen the legislation, now that they have seen a Premier who claimed he had a veto, to have another chance. That is why we would urge all members of this Legislature to support us in this motion of nonconfidence so that we can have an election in Ontario to truly reflect the opinions and the wants of our people.

Mr. Offer: I am pleased to rise in this debate and speak against this motion and to urge all members to vote in the same fashion.

During the provincial election campaign last September, the Premier criticized the Canada-US trade agreement on the ground that it is a bad deal for Ontario and for Canada. Since the election, this government has continued to oppose the agreement. The federal government has conceded to the United States more than it has gained. We believe this particular deal profoundly reduces the ability of Canadians to shape their future.

Because of our concerns that the agreement will adversely affect the ability of Canadians to control their own future, the government of Ontario commissioned a study to determine the constitutional effects of the trade agreement. The key finding of this legal analysis is that the Canada-US trade agreement will dramatically and systematically reduce the ability of both the federal and provincial governments to shape and implement Canadian social policy.

Implementation of the trade agreement will mean that provinces will be severely constrained in responding to the social needs of their citizens. New provincial programs in a wide variety of areas will require the approval of US politicians and interest groups. If the Americans object, they will have the legal right to call upon the Canadian government to intervene and attempt to override provincial initiatives.

The Canada-US trade agreement makes room for a third party at the federal-provincial bargaining table: the US government. This new legal relationship with the US will fundamentally alter the dynamics of Canadian federalism, a federalism characterized by a spirit of compromise, civility and respect.

Both federal and provincial governments in this country have refrained from aggressive intrusions into the jurisdiction of other governments and avoided needless constitutional confrontation. This Canadian political tradition will be compromised by the proposed trade agreement. Americans will be able to insist that the government of Canada attempt to control provincial programs and policies in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This follows from the undertaking of the federal government in article 103 of the agreement to, and I quote, “ensure that all necessary measures are taken” to ensure the observance of the agreement by the provinces.

The legal analysis reveals that under the proposed Canada-US trade agreement each province will be forced to govern with one arm tied behind its back. This is a direct result of Canada’s obligation under the agreement to accord to American corporations national treatment with respect to investment and trade in goods and services. One implication of this agreement is that if a province gives its own residents any preference over residents of other provinces in matters covered by the agreement, then it must give Americans the same preference. In other words, the agreement would require the province to treat Americans better than Canadians from other provinces.

1550

The provinces now have many programs and policies that do not accord national treatment or equal treatment to American businesses. National treatment may be denied for a number of legitimate reasons. A province might want to deny national treatment to maintain control over economic activity vital to that province or to supervise foreign ownership of resources or to protect new industries and jobs. It might want to help local cultural activities flourish in an overwhelmingly foreign cultural environment.

As a result of the federal government’s obligation under the agreement, provincial policy options, each province’s ability to shape the social and economic future of its residents, will be drastically restricted. As well, many policy actions, which I might add are the direct response of the desires of the people of Ontario, will be threatened.

Discussion of national treatment leads me to the issue of subsidies and government assistance to Ontario industry. The whole practice of subsidies has been turned over to a series of negotiations between Canada and the US that will continue from five to seven years. During these negotiations, there will be a lot of pressure on Canada’s regional development programs. The results of the negotiations are critical to the provincial power to maintain and develop almost all facets of its economic policy.

The agreement states that a subsidy cannot “constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination” between American and Canadian investors. The ability of a province to subsidize Canadian-owned or provincially owned business will be seriously impaired by the requirement that subsidies meet this very vague standard. Some new labour adjustment subsidies directed to Canadians or Ontarians could be successfully attacked. Regional development programs or programs to ensure the enforcement of environmental standards could face similar challenges, and of course, provinces could avoid such attacks by inviting the US government to attend their cabinet meetings and asking the Americans which of the proposed provincial programs they would find acceptable. This is why we say the agreement not only makes room for, but necessitates a third party among federal and provincial decision-makers.

The implications of this change cannot be stressed too highly. The ability of future and current provincial governments to act in their citizens’ interests may be severely constrained as a result of this agreement. Provincial practices which are currently considered to be legitimate public policy measures and are specifically provided for in the agreement will not be available to other provinces after January 1, 1989. For example, if at some future date Manitoba or Alberta or Ontario wanted to follow the practice of Prince Edward Island in restricting foreign ownership of agricultural lands, the federal government could be obliged to use every means to prevent this if the US objected.

For Ontario, this agreement is not just about the specific matter of implementing a new pricing policy for wines and spirits. Rather, the trade pact will result in a broad impairment of provincial government policy towards many of Ontario’s industrial and resource-based sectors. For example, the scope of two-price energy policy as a provincial tool for economic development will be restricted.

I would like to reinforce that opinion by citing from a presentation made to the Senate foreign affairs committee by a western expert, Professor Bruce Wilkinson of the University of Alberta. Mr. Wilkinson expressed concern regarding the lack of policy flexibility with regard to energy and stated that the differential between domestic and export prices for hydro utilities could be ended. He also suggested that provincial control over resource protection is limited by the free trade agreement.

Aside from energy, the agreement will also apply to policies about resources which Canada does not yet export but could quite conceivably intend to export in the future. A main example is water. Canada may not impose quantitative restrictions on the export of water except as allowed by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and while conservation is an acceptable reason under the GATT for limiting exports if domestic consumption is also limited, protection of the environment is not. Limits to water exports may have to come from the owners of the water: the provinces.

While the US does not, under the agreement, have any right to insist that the owners of the Canadian resource must start to export water to it, if anyone in Canada does export it in the future, then the agreement will ensure that Americans have proportionate access to it thereafter.

The pricing of water exports would also be subject to the agreement, because no minimum price may be imposed. Ontario or any other province could not introduce, for instance, a water-taking fee, say as a conservation measure or as a means of making up social or environmental costs of diverting water, unless the same fee were applied to domestic use. It will be subject to this agreement because article 408 prohibits “any tax, duty or charge on the export of any good” that is not also levied on the good “when destined for domestic consumption.”

In addition to these examples, provinces may find their ability to differentiate between Canadian and US health and social service providers limited by the agreement, and cultural industries will be the subject of a specific right of retaliation on the agreement.

The key effects of the Canada-US trade agreement is to unilaterally alter constitutional relations in this country, but even greater than these concerns is the profound economic impact this agreement will have on Ontario. It is for these reasons that this government opposes this deal and asks all members of this Legislature to vote against this motion.

Mr. Laughren: I am pleased to stand in my place and put the position of the New Democrats on this nonconfidence motion. I should say at the outset that we will be supporting the nonconfidence motion.

It should be obvious to all members, not because of the sentiments in the motion that support the concept of free trade but rather because we, along with the Conservative Party of Ontario, have indeed lost confidence in the ability of this government to deal on our behalf with the federal government when it comes to the whole question of free trade. There is no reason for us to support this government or to lead anyone to believe that he or she should have any confidence whatsoever in the government when it comes to negotiating free trade.

We understand why the Conservative Party has lost confidence in the government, because it is very much an ideological question with that party. With us, we are supporting them, as I say, because we are absolutely convinced that the Premier and the Attorney General in particular, and I suppose the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) along with them, have completely bungled the negotiations with the federal government. The only question that is in my mind, certainly, is whether that bungling was deliberate or otherwise.

It is hard to believe that we would have reached this stage in the negotiations, with the government having said everything it has said, unless the Premier knew from the very beginning it was all going to be a charade. It is hard to believe he could mishandle the entire thing that much.

1600

Let me remind the members what the Premier said during the campaign. He said: “There will be no deal without a dispute settlement mechanism. There will be no deal unless we can support regional development; no deal if it hurts farmers; no deal if we cannot screen foreign investment; no deal if it threatens our cultural identity and no deal if it guts the auto pact.”

No deal. He did not say, “We will oppose it.” He said there would be no deal. He did not just say, “If you do these things, we won’t support it.” No, that is not what he said. He said there would be no deal.

I want to tell the members that when he stands in his place and says there will be no deal and now acquiesces without even a challenge, you have to ask yourself: “What did he mean when he said that? Was he deliberately misleading the people of Ontario? Does he have any information now that he did not have then?”

Tell me exactly what the Treasurer meant when he said that. What is there now in front of the Premier -- the Premier, not the Treasurer -- that was not there when he made these statements during the election campaign?

From those very, very clear statements, we have moved now to a situation where it really is almost a joke. When the Attorney General tabled the report, The Impact of the Canada/US Trade Agreement: A Legal Analysis, just this last week, it was truly remarkable to see what was in that report.

Among other things, it says that the trade pact will dramatically reduce provincial powers and give the US a voice in all future federal-provincial decisions. It says the US “will have the right to insist that our national government intervene in a whole range of matters which fall under provincial jurisdiction.”

This is what the Attorney General told this Legislature. He said, “Provincial attempts to respond to the social and economic needs of their citizens will be severely constrained.” He said the pact will lessen provincial powers to make social and economic policies, including energy pricing, resource development and health care. He went on to say, “New provincial programs in a wide variety of areas will be monitored by politicians and interest groups in the United States.”

Given that admission by the Attorney General, how can the government members of this assembly sit in their places and acquiesce while the leaders of their government and their party do absolutely nothing to stop it? They make these statements, which I believe to be true, and then say, “However, we’re not even going to try to stop it.”

Despite that earlier commitment in the middle of an election campaign that there would be no deal, now, six months or more later, the Attorney General admits that these things are happening. Nothing has changed, except the fact that now the government is in the first year of a four-year term. It really is that smarmy.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Given those statements that were so clear back last August, we now hear the Premier still saying things like: “The deal is bad and should be stopped. I have said before I think the solution is when the people of the country pass judgement on it in a general election.”

Then he said, “I have to see what is in the legislation.” Then he said, “I will look into the deal. I do not think it is helpful to indulge in hypothetical questions.” He said: “There is a very distinct possibility that Ontario will soon undertake a challenge in the courts on the grounds that the legislation interferes with provincial jurisdiction over liquor pricing and distribution. I don’t want to overemphasize our influence in this matter, but I think we speak for a number of Canadians in our views.”

It goes on and on, the point being that as time goes by there is always an excuse for not doing something, always; it never seems to end. I simply have absolutely no confidence when the Premier stands up now and says anything about the free trade agreement. It is nothing but a con game. It truly was dishonest politicking back in August.

Mr. Smith: You have gone too far.

Mr. Laughren: It certainly was dishonest politicking. There is absolutely no better expression to describe it. We suspected this was going to happen. On January 6 of this year the Liberal government brought in a resolution to this House in which it condemned the free trade agreement. This party, despite the fact that we are opposed to free trade, did not support that resolution. We moved an amendment to it.

This is what one of the members said that afternoon when we were debating, after we had put our amendment to toughen up the resolution. I quote page 1769 of Hansard: “I think most government members would agree when they look at the resolution that it does not require them or any minister or the Premier to do anything; absolutely nothing. They can pack up their books tonight or tomorrow night, go home and forget about free trade, because it will be entirely in the hands of Prime Minister Mulroney. This government will not have to do a single thing, because this resolution does not call upon it to do anything; no action.”

Those were comments by a member of the assembly back on January 6.

Mr. Dietsch: Name names. We want facts.

Mr. Laughren: I will confess that it was the member for Nickel Belt who made that prediction. I did not know at the time exactly how accurate I would be. But when you look back on it now, we were absolutely right. We moved an amendment to that resolution that called for the government to take some specific action, and we have been calling upon the government ever since to do just that, because we have learned from the days of the election campaign that whatever the Premier says he is going to do, it does not necessarily mean he is going to do it.

The members can read whatever they want into that comment. I am not at all exaggerating. I am not at all being provocative. I am being totally honest when I say that the Premier engaged in dishonest politicking last summer on the question of free trade, and he has engaged in the same tactic ever since then. He is still no more honest on this issue than he was back in August.

We asked the Premier to do a number of things. For one, we asked him to notify the federal government officially of Ontario’s opposition to the deal and the government’s intention not to implement, in any fashion, any part of the deal falling within provincial jurisdiction. He did not do that.

We asked him to notify the federal government officially of Ontario’s intention to pursue a constitutional challenge to the deal. He did not do that. We asked him to similarly notify the Reagan administration and the Congress of the United States of our opposition to it. He did not do that when we asked him to do it.

Then just a week or so ago, my leader stood in his place and asked the Premier to sign a letter saying that Ontario intends to pass legislation which clearly asserts provincial jurisdiction over energy, natural resources, health and community services and the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages. The Premier refused to sign that letter.

It is clear, and it has been clear from last August, that the Premier was simply talking a good game. He is all fluff and no stuff. He has done absolutely nothing when it came to trying to prevent this deal from becoming a reality.

I was impressed last January during the debate with the way the Liberal members spoke on this issue. I said at the time that I felt they were speaking from their hearts and they actually meant what they said. I cannot imagine how a Liberal in Ontario now feels, having witnessed the lack of action on the part of the Premier. I am not exaggerating. He has done absolutely nothing.

Those members of the Liberal Party from northern Ontario must feel particularly aggrieved, because if there is one part of this province that is going to get it in the neck with the free trade agreement, it is northern Ontario. That is who is going to get it in the neck. If you think we have had lack of economic development for the last 100 years, then you should see what is going to happen in the next 100 years in northern Ontario. The only thing that will matter will be shipping out the resources as quickly as possible and be damned with any kind of economic development in northern Ontario.

We have agreed to share the time among the three parties and I will relinquish my place now.

Mr. Runciman: I have just a few brief comments. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I spoke at length late last year, for approximately three hours, on the free trade agreement.

Mr. Black: How well we remember. Painful.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, it was very attention-grabbing. I share the member’s view of that. I want to indicate our support for much of what the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has just talked about, as regards the position taken by the Liberal Party, and most forcefully so by its leader, during the last provincial election.

1610

There is no question about it that there was a clear message sent out to the electorate that this was a bad deal for Ontario and that the Premier was the white knight who was going to fight the people’s battles for them in respect to free trade and fight it right to the bitter end. Obviously, we have seen a significant turnaround in the past few months in attitude and position on the part of the Premier, his ministers and the trained seals who sit behind him.

We talk about the position taken by the government, and I have mentioned a number of areas of concern in respect to the Attorney General and comments he has made -- I want to put this on the record again.

When the Attorney General was speaking to the Canadian Bar Association, he said that the free trade deal represents an intrusion on provincial powers of significant magnitude. That the free trade agreement will likely restrict the power of provinces to require upgrading or processing of natural resources, and most significantly, will force governments, and listen to this, fellows – “to compensate private companies before they can set up public insurance schemes in auto insurance.”

I thought that was a rather significant comment coming from that infamous social engineer, the Attorney General, and a clear indication of where this government or at least some key players in this government are taking us in respect to auto insurance.

One of the myths that surround the leader of the Liberal Party is that this is an individual with considerable business experience. That is a myth that has been built up by the party and by the public relations people around him, by the media and in some respects by our own party in terms of question period, but the reality is this is an individual who has very little real business experience. He came out of school and was almost immediately named the president of daddy’s firm. That is really working your way up from the bottom, learning what the business is all about and what the business world is all about. There is no question he was a figurehead president. So to suggest that this individual has any understanding or appreciation of business is a myth and nothing less than that.

We have the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) in the House. I have said this before: He is someone who has some business credentials that stand up to scrutiny and he is probably one of the individuals in the caucus who has some very serious reservations, to say the least, about the position his leader and his party are taking in respect to free trade. But he has to do the right thing as a member of the executive council. He enjoys his car and driver and the perks associated with the office and is not about to take a position different from that of his leader.

We talk about this leader not knowing what is going on and the back and forth on the issue. I brought up a matter dealing with Ontario Hydro’s submission to the Ontario Energy Board a couple of weeks ago. The major crown corporation of this province has a position in respect to the impact of free trade on this province radically different from that of the government. It is unheard of to have a crown corporation saying: “This is going to have a very positive impact in terms of growth in this province and a very significant beneficial impact. Ontario is going to be the main beneficiary of free trade.” That is the assessment of the largest crown corporation in this province.

What happens when I ask the Premier of this province about that contradiction, that dichotomy of views? He stands up and says: “I did not know about it. I have not heard about it.” Can members believe that? How on top of this issue is that so-called leader, that so-called businessman? He is operating in a cloud on this issue, as are the people surrounding him and supporting him -- Margaret Atwood, Pierre Trudeau. Next we will have Madonna setting monetary policy.

I am telling members to take a look at their situation. I am telling the back-benchers to stand up and speak for the people they are representing. That is the only way they are going to be noticed in this 94-seat group of trained seals and the brown-nosed gang over in the right-hand corner. We only have one of them sitting over there this afternoon.

I have to allocate some time for my colleague. I simply want to say that we have seen nothing in terms of direction provided by the current government other than indecisive, and in many instances, dishonest leadership. I urge all members of the House to support the motion of the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt).

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I am one of those back-benchers who would like to speak on this occasion and talk about how my constituents and some of the people of Ontario feel about this deal, in fact, feel about this motion of nonconfidence. I suggest that the more appropriate motion of nonconfidence would be a motion of nonconfidence in the federal government’s mishandling of this entire situation and the trade agreement.

Before going into their inability to handle the difficult issues they face, I would just like to go to the agreement itself and point out some of the more problematic areas. The first is article 103, which we all know requires the parties, Canada and the United States, to take all necessary measures in order to give effect to the provisions of the agreement, including observance by the provincial and local governments.

What that translates into in Bill C-130, the so-called federal omnibus trade deal, is a very specific provision which purports to give the federal government the power for greater certainty. “Nothing shall limit in any manner the right of Parliament to enact legislation to implement any provision of the agreement or fulfil any obligation.” It goes on and says, “The Governor in Council, for purpose of giving effect to this agreement, may make regulations for the purpose of enforcing this agreement and for overriding any penalties or regulations which contravene or demonstrate noncompliance with the agreement.”

In other words, the federal government is going to run the show, not only federally but also provincially and locally. The legal analysis examines the effect of those provisions and in one particular area --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member will address his remarks through the Speaker and will ignore the interjections.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing my remarks to you. The problem I have is with these running dogs sitting over here who are echoing their respective federal party’s position.

The Deputy Speaker: Please.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McLean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If you had listened closely, you would have heard the statement made by the honourable member and I would suggest that he withdraw that.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I will withdraw that and rely upon the phrase used by my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), “brownnosers,” if that is the phrase.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind the members of the Legislature that they are wandering very close to nonparliamentary language on both sides of the House. I ask all members to please show more respect to other members in the labels they may affix to members. Thank you.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: What I want to deal with is the specific impact this trade agreement has on the ability of the provincial government to use subsidies as a means of economic development. The conditions are, in this agreement, that a subsidy shall not “constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between investors.”

The reasons for denying national treatment are probably not enough to show that a discriminatory measure is not arbitrary or unjustifiable. the point being simply that a subsidy is not allowed to the extent that it is discriminatory or arbitrary and there are no grounds for saying that a subsidy is not discriminatory or not arbitrary.

The specific type of subsidy I would like to speak about is job training, job subsidies, job creation programs. What the leader of the third party wants to talk about in terms of job training, or so it seems to me, is establishing trade missions in foreign countries that may in the end result create a few jobs for a few Americans, but he is not dealing with the major disadvantage of this agreement, which is the great loss of jobs in Canada. Nowhere in his motion has he addressed that.

One of the most important economic plans operating in Ontario right now is our training strategy to deal with the job dislocation which will inevitably occur as a result of the free trade agreement and its implementation.

1620

Mr. Runciman: What are you doing about it?

Mr. J. B. Nixon: First of all, I would like to describe what the federal government says it is doing about it.

“Half a million Canadians could lose their jobs during the decade of a free trade treaty with the United States while it is being implemented,” Benoit Bouchard, Minister of Employment and Immigration, says. “It could be over 500,000 jobs, but it could be below. It could be no change at all, but it is all theoretical because we could not say today where exactly the major change will be.” Benoit Bouchard, the federal minister, goes on: “It will depend on what sector is concerned, which kind of worker we have to retrain, which kind of worker will lose his job, find another job. All that package will be there in due course.”

So says Mr. Bouchard.

Let me tell the members what Mr. Mulroney said. He said that workers in three or four sectors would be hurt by free trade. He did not get very specific, but then he said, “That is why this government, with your help and support, has undertaken with the provinces to ensure a massive program to assist those workers affected by adjustment and dislocation.” Mulroney later told reporters: “I think there would be, in the future, new training programs. I can see circumstances in some industries where they would need new programs.”

Then, the next day. Mr. Turner asked Mr. Wilson in the federal House: “If, as the Prime Minister states, there are no losers in the Canadian free trade agreement, then why did he say last night that massive programs would have to be undertaken to protect Canadians who will lose their jobs as a result of the agreement with the United States? Where are these programs? Can the minister unveil and describe them right now?”

Mr. Wilson’s reply was quite different from the reply given by Mr. Mulroney earlier that day. Mr. Wilson said: “Let me take the opportunity to answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition and say that we do not expect there will be a need for any significant programs of adjustment. We have a number of programs in place right now. The Prime Minister has said there is a need for those programs. Those programs are in place, and those programs will be augmented to the extent that it is necessary to deal with the problem.”

Let me go on and tell the members that everyone recognized at that point that you had one minister of the crown, Mr. Bouchard, saying that perhaps 500,000 jobs will be lost; the senior minister, the Prime Minister, saying we will have massive job-training programs; and then the Minister of Finance saying we will have no new programs. I do not know who speaks for Ottawa.

Mr. Callahan: And they are all still in cabinet.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: And they are all still in cabinet.

Let me tell members the fact of what the federal government is doing to deal with these potentially lost 500,000 jobs.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What are you guys doing to stop the deal?

Mr. J. B. Nixon: It has established Canadian Jobs Strategy, which consolidates all federal spending on training and employment development under a single umbrella. Good idea. Federal funding for labour market development has fallen with the introduction of Canadian Jobs Strategy. Ontario’s Canadian Jobs Strategy allocation has fallen at a faster rate than the national allocation.

Mr. Mulroney talked about massive spending, massive programs to deal with the 500,000 lost jobs. What has happened since the government established Canadian Jobs Strategy? In 1984-85, the budgetary allocation was $2.2 billion. By 1988-89, the budgetary allocation was $1.4 billion. The reduction in Canadian Jobs Strategy, Mr. Mulroney’s massive job-training program, was 36 per cent, and the major brunt of that reduction, that deficit-cutting, that budget reduction, was borne by Ontario and will be borne by Ontario where there will be significant job losses, as predicted by the other minister of the crown, Mr. Bouchard.

My friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), has asked what Ontario is doing. Ontario has been working on this problem. Ontario recognizes that you do not establish a trade office to take advantage of the benefits of these deals as, in and of itself, the only solution to the problem. The problem of the dislocation, of the job loss, has to be dealt with in a number of ways.

The Premier’s Council, which some of the members may be familiar with, has said: “One of the key competitive challenges Ontario faces is developing our most fundamental natural resource, the minds and skills of our workers. Ontario’s competitive position has been seriously challenged in recent years. While the province has made gains in real economic growth and job creation, our competitiveness in several industries has been eroded by our major trading partners. Those economies that have invested in the basic and advanced skills of their workforces have achieved stronger economic performance through superior worker training and labour market responsiveness.”

I suggest that is the legacy of the 42 years the leader of the third party was so proud of. The other side of the legacy is the loss of competitive position, the absence of job-training programs, the absence of support for education of our workforce.

Commenting on the federal job-training program -- members should remember this is the Canadian Jobs Strategy that was cut from $2.2 billion to $1.4 billion over a period of four years -- the Premier’s Council states: “The priorities of the federal government in Canada stand in sharp contrast to the national policies of other countries such as Japan, Germany and Great Britain, where training is seen as primarily part of an economic rather than a social strategy; policies and programs are aggressively pursued to this end, and institutional structures reinforce the national commitment.”

We have no national commitment. We have no recognition of the needs and the burdens this federal government will place on all provinces with its trade agreement.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What are you guys doing to stop the deal?

Mr. J. B. Nixon: The member for Windsor-Riverside wants to know what we are doing. I only read to him from one small part of the Premier’s Council, “The government of Ontario has provided a single focus for training in the province.”

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I didn’t ask about training. I asked what you were doing to stop the deal.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Why does the member not listen for a second?

“The Ontario Training Strategy (OTS), launched in 1986, has doubled the province’s training commitment from $50 million to $100 million annually. Training in Ontario now has the same level of financial support as the Premier’s Council technology fund.”

I suggest that if the opposition were interested in taking advantage of any benefits there might be in this trade deal, it would pay attention to the disadvantages first. They would deal with the very real problems we face as a society and as a province and provide some constructive advice. All we have heard is, “Establish a few more trade offices and create some employment in America.” I suggest that is the wrong way to do it.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to address this resolution. Surely, if any government deserved to have a nonconfidence motion and if there was ever a reason for a nonconfidence motion, it has to do with the trade policies of this particular government, which we are facing here today. This government has abdicated its role to take a position on behalf of the people of this province in fighting this trade deal. This government refuses to stand up and protect the interests of the workers of our province, the interests of our farmers and our consumers, and instead has reneged completely on its election promises.

I remind members of this Legislature that in the campaign last fall, the Premier made a commitment, which was a large part of his election campaign. The people of the province believed that he was going to live up to that commitment. The Premier said that there would be no deal without a dispute settlement mechanism. He said that there would be no deal unless we could support regional development. There would be no deal if the agreement was going to hurt farmers. There would be no deal if we could not screen foreign investment. There would be no deal if it threatened our cultural identity and there would be no deal if it gutted the auto pact.

We now know, and we have known for a number of months, that the deal that was worked out between Prime Minister Mulroney and America’s President Reagan in fact did not meet any of these six terms.

1630

This government made a commitment in the last election campaign to fight such a deal, but what has happened? Every time it comes to action on this deal, we hear another excuse from the government why we cannot take action now. One excuse is, “We have to wait for another event farther down the road.” The most recent one now is, “We have not seen the actual legislation.” The last excuse last fall after the final terms of the agreement had been met was, “We cannot take action until we see the legislation itself.” We have now seen the legislation in the last week, but what is the government’s approach? The government’s reaction to that is, “Now we have to wait until it is passed.” In fact, really, we know that the government’s reaction is that it will not do anything until the agreement is fully implemented on January 1 of next year.

The people of Ontario have been extremely disappointed with this reaction. This government continues to sit on the fence, taking no position. Certainly I hear comments from the chairman of the finance and economic affairs committee. We have been on that committee, looking at this issue for over two years. We have been to Washington four times. We have heard the concerns that have been expressed to us by so many submissions in front of our committee, but still, what has been the position of the Liberals? When it came to reports from that committee, twice we have come out with major reports and the Liberals have supported the same position as the Conservatives on that committee. It has only been the New Democrats who have filed dissents, asking this government to take solid action to stop this agreement.

All the way down the line, when it comes to actual action, the Liberals have been on side with the Conservatives. At least we can give the Conservatives credit for being honest and forthright about their position on free trade. The Liberals in effect are backing free trade. They are backing the business agenda of taking away the powers of governments in this country, of taking away the rights of the people of this country to determine their own future and putting so many of those powers into the hands of the Americans. This government continues to acquiesce and not act on those concerns.

I hear questions about what kinds of things we could in fact do. I suggest that we have heard submissions which indicate many things we could do as a government here in Ontario to fight this agreement, which this government refuses to look at. I am going to give four --

Interjection.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The member is asking to see what some of those items are and I am going to give him some of them right now. These were presented to our committee by Leo Gerard --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. Morin-Strom: -- District 6 director of United Steelworkers of America, representing the interests of his workers and concerned citizens across this province. This is just a list of some of the kinds of things that we could be doing.

“1. To publish and publicize a consumer guide to the trade deal, to make it clear what the agreement means for consumer prices, including the impact of the deal on transborder shopping expeditions ... .” This government has done nothing to publicize the deficiencies of this agreement. The federal government has committed $14 million to fighting on its side of the issue, but this government will do nothing to counter the federal government’s actions.

“2. Identify publicly the plants in Ontario that will lose the benefit of duty waiver programs as a result of this deal

“3. Strengthen requirements that Ontario resources be processed and refined in this province ... .” If there was ever an important priority in terms of any kind of sensible strategy for the regions of this province and of this country as a whole, it would be to protect the resource sector. We have to maintain that right. This deal takes away that right.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Just one moment, please. I would ask all honourable members to stop interjecting or having conversations across the floor while the member for Sault Ste. Marie is proceeding with his presentation.

Mr. Morin-Strom: “4. Declare that Ontario will not accord national treatment to US goods as required by article 502 of the deal.” Surely we have to have the right to give preferential purchasing to goods produced here in Canada and Ontario. If we are going to develop our own industries, we have to have the right to develop Canadian content policies of the type that have been so successful for the auto industry.

“5. Review Ontario’s technical standards legislation with a view to exercising Ontario’s full constitutional authority in this area.” Certainly in terms of environmental concerns, we see that this agreement specifies that Ontario, Canada as a whole in fact, has to be in the process of melding, unifying our environmental requirements with those of the United States. I do not know how we can think that we, as Canadians, can protect our own interests and concerns in this area, which we know are so much stronger than the Americans, and then go and sell out and say that we are going to match our environmental standards with theirs, but that is in this agreement in black and white in the agricultural section covering all pesticides, which is the biggest area of chemical regulation in both of our countries.

“6. Expand and strengthen Ontario’s agricultural marketing board structure if needed ... .” Certainly our family farm is seriously threatened by this agreement. We are looking at the potential for corporate farming taking over the unified marketplace and the marketing boards have worked very successfully in terms of maintaining the family farm in Ontario, and Canada as a whole, in comparison with what the Americans have as their alternative, which is corporate farming.

“7. In accordance with accepted GAIT principles, substitute indirect subsidies of grape growers for the direct subsidy of Ontario wine through Liquor Control Board of Ontario pricing policies ... .” Surely this is an industry which is going to go down the drain under this agreement. We need to have a government that is going to stand up for it, not sit there on the fence, wishy-washy in terms of this approach to the grape growers and the wine sector.

“8. Expand and strengthen Ontario’s energy regulatory authority to the full limits of provincial jurisdiction.

“9. Introduce new regulations governing the sale of...used cars.

“10. Strengthen Ontario’s government procurement preferences.

“11. Immediately cancel Ontario’s plans to deregulate the transportation industry ... .”

The list goes on and on. Surely this particular one, the fact that this government, while it proclaims itself to be against free trade, meanwhile is moving on Bills 86, 87 and 88 to deregulate the trucking industry and allow unlimited access to our industry from American truckers is an indication of where this government is actually going in terms of legislation, while it continues to pronounce the rhetoric of being against free trade. The trucking sector feels, and certainly we have heard from the Ontario Trucking Association of the devastating impact that the Ontario legislation is going to have on that sector, we should have a government that is willing to stand up for Ontario industry and ensure that we get fair treatment from the Americans and not just give them wide-open access to an important sector in our transportation business.

The list goes on and on. The Liberals claim there is nothing that can be done, but we have heard many suggestions in our committee and I would ask that this government take action on these items. I would hope that our committee will reach some resolution in terms of the report that is about to come from our committee, but certainly at this point, there is no way that we can express any kind of confidence in this government when it comes to trade, and we will be standing very strongly opposed to the trade policies of this Liberal government.

Mr. Pope: It is my privilege to participate in this debate on behalf of my party, and I say to the people of Ontario that I think it is appropriate at this point to review some of the messages that the Liberal publicity machine was issuing over the past year and a half, so I have a selected sample of clippings to share with the people of Ontario. The first one says, “Free Trade Must Benefit All, Peterson Says,” and in here it says, “In the meantime we are fighting for Canada’s interest every inch of the way.” Some fight.

Here is another one, and I am just doing this to jog people’s memories as to the messages that they were given by the Liberal Party of Ontario, “Premier Hardens Position on Trade.” Another one, “Peterson Sets Out Bottom Line Terms for Free Trade Pact.” Another one, “Peterson Sets Conditions for Backing Free Trade Pact.” Another one, “North Gets Nothing from Free Trade Agreement.”

1640

Another one, Michael Bennett with Peterson, “Looking for a ‘No’ Mandate.”

Another one, “Peterson Warns Against Trade Deal without Ratification by Provinces.”

Another one --

Mr. Haggerty: Did you read today’s Sun?

Mr. Pope: -- and the member from Niagara South, who has selective hearing, might want to listen to this one, “‘No question, Ontario has veto to reject a pact,’ Peterson says.”

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: What’s the date on that?

Mr. Pope: Now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is asking, “What is the date of that?” That is precisely the issue, because they have changed their positions as they went through the election and as this issue has unfolded, and I think it is a disgusting, despicable effort by a Liberal government that has not come clean with the people of this province.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: All we know is it was pre-election.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member for Cochrane South has read something into the record. I think that we have a right to know the date that document was prepared.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order, but if he wishes to participate in the debate later, I am sure the minister will have a chance.

Mr. Pope: It was pre-election, and I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is trying to avoid that issue.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: No.

Mr. Pope: Oh, now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -- and I presume he is going to get on his feet to say this -- is saying that they said one thing before the election and one thing after. That is exactly what he is saying right now. Thank you very much. If you are a Liberal, that is OK. For a Liberal, it is OK to say one thing before and during an election campaign and quite another thing afterwards. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology thinks that is OK. He is saying yes. He is saying it is OK. What a disgraceful display of responsible, honest government.

Then we have a new lyric to a freer trade tune. “Peterson says he has the right to veto any implementation on the provincial level.” We now know that is not true.

But here is my favourite. “Premier believes unknown nature of free trade pact is dangerous.” I just want to read one quote here:

“‘The Canadian system is more civilized than the society to the south,’ he said. ‘The United States is dominated by special interests and a business ethic that has produced cultural monuments such as Disneyland and Mickey Mouse,’ he said.”

That is reported. That is his analysis of the free trade issue -- this from a man who on a Friday afternoon in late August 1987 was carried on radio across this province as saying he was always a Pee Wee Herman fan. Not only that, he was thrilled because he was talking to a Pee Wee Herman look-alike.

We have been treated to the full range of the Liberal propaganda machine over the past year and a half on this issue. We have had an election and the pre-election period when the Premier, by the admission of his own Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology today, has said one thing, and quite another after he received his mandate.

We have seen televised cabinet committee meetings carried on community cable television across the province for weeks on end -- endless, nonsensical propaganda. We have seen studies selectively given, or leaked ahead of time to media and selectively released to the members of this Legislature.

And what do they all say? They try to buttress the whole pervasive atmosphere or attitude that the Premier wished to give off in the last year and a half. He could veto the deal, and if it was perchance signed by the Prime Minister of this country, he could frustrate it. He could make sure it was never implemented, not only in Ontario but also across this country.

He said that he could successfully mount a constitutional challenge.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: When did he say that?

Mr. Pope: Exactly. Now we have the chairman of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs asking, “When did he say that?” I will admit that he said it before the election, and the honourable member says it is OK now if he did not mean it.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pope: Liberals think it is OK to say whatever they want during the election campaign and then tell the people --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat?

I understand the concern that all members have. I would like to remind all members to use as much restraint as they possibly can and allow the member for Cochrane South to continue for approximately another minute and a half.

Mr. Pope: I think it is clear, in spite of an earlier Liberal speaker who said that what the party had made clear during the election campaign is that it would oppose the deal. I wrote it down as he was saying it and the members of the New Democratic Party were quite right in saying, “That is not what you said during the election campaign.” The Premier (Mr. Peterson) said he could veto it. He said he could frustrate it. He said he could stop it. He said he could mount a successful constitutional challenge to it. All of it was election hooey and they ought to be ashamed of themselves, the whole Liberal gang across the House.

The next myth is that somehow the United States government is going to sit on David Peterson’s shoulders when he makes decisions. How nonsensical. This is the same David Peterson who made a secret deal on softwood lumber when the Americans filed a countervail application in Washington, the same Premier, and he is now worried about the Americans sitting on his shoulder. What a bunch of hypocrisy and nonsense, and he agreed to it in writing through his Deputy Minister of Natural Resources in September 1987. The next matter --

Mr. Reycraft: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker: A point of order. The honourable member for Middlesex.

Mr. Reycraft: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Cochrane South has used the term “hypocrisy” in his speech. The term is clearly unparliamentary, according to the rules of this chamber. I would ask you that he remove it.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member.

Mr. Pope: It is clear now that this government intends to do nothing. They are not even going to challenge something that deals directly --

The Acting Speaker: Withdraw the term.

Mr. Pope: -- with wine and liquor.

The Acting Speaker: I would request the honourable member withdraw the statement with respect to hypocrisy.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I was listening to the speaker. Obviously the point was an attempt to disrupt the speaker in his final 15 or 20 seconds of summation. The speaker did not refer to anybody in this House with reference to hypocrisy. I heard the word “hypocrisy” in general, applying to a policy that a group of people seem to have.

If an individual member had been called hypocritical, in that sense, I think it would have been a matter of unparliamentary language. But I did not hear that and I would suggest that 20 seconds be added to the clock so the member can conclude his remarks.

The Acting Speaker: I listened very carefully to the point of order made by the member for Middlesex, as well as the response made by the member for Cochrane South and the member for Nipissing.

The words that were said at the time indicated, if I recall them appropriately, hypocrisy with respect to the government itself. I note the honourable member has indicated that he refuses to withdraw the statement. I will ask him if he will please withdraw that statement.

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I never said anything to you, previous to just now. OK?

The Acting Speaker: You continued speaking with respect to the comment. I would ask that the honourable member please --

Mr. Pope: This will be the second time I am removed from this chamber through an error in what I said.

The Acting Speaker: I would request that the honourable member again reconsider what he has said. Would you please withdraw the comment?

Mr. Pope: I will withdraw it, but I am very unhappy that this has happened.

The Acting Speaker: I appreciate the honourable member’s co-operation. I understand, but I do appreciate your co-operation with respect to this. Thank you.

Would any other honourable member wish to participate?

Mr. Harris: I think the member for Cochrane South has a point. I would ask the chair to facilitate the debate today. Could the chair check the Hansard, and if, in fact, there was nothing said that had to be withdrawn -- and I think the member is saying, if anybody is offended, he is pleased to withdraw it. But could you check the Hansard and, perhaps, tomorrow, indicate that it was either necessary or it was not?

The Acting Speaker: I will be more than pleased to check the Hansard, look at it completely and return to the House tomorrow, or speak directly with the honourable member.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I appreciate your ruling and I am not rising on my feet to debate it, of course, but would you also comment, when you make your ruling on the member for Cochrane South, if you choose, make comment on the behaviour of the chief government whip in intervening with about one minute to go in the member’s speech, in order to disrupt his concluding remarks?

1650

The Acting Speaker: I understand the point of order that has been brought forward by the member for Nickel Belt. I will not make comment with respect to that but I will certainly make comment and review Hansard with respect to the comment of the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). Does any other honourable member wish to participate?

Mr. Black: I am pleased to participate in this debate and I am pleased to urge members of this Legislature to vote against the nonconfidence motion. The member for Sarnia would suggest that the government has failed to make a convincing case. I suggest that the case has been clearly made and effectively stated. The members of the opposition may well not have heard it, they may well not have understood it, but indeed the case has been made.

The member for Sarnia would also suggest that the Premier stands alone in his opposition to the free trade agreement. Such is not the case. There are other people who have stated the case and stated it effectively. I would like to take this opportunity to make reference to just a few of them.

I want, first, to refer to some people from the international scene who are involved in trade. Takashi Ishihara, chairman of the giant Nissan Motor Co., has his view of the bilateral trade agreement. He suggests: “If countries continue to lock themselves into such bilateral arrangements, then there is a fear this will lead to economic blocs like the 1930s and a decline in world trade. We are very much afraid of that.”

Willy Dc Clerq, in effect the trade minister of the European Community, has also attacked and has made this case effectively: “Bilateralism is a dangerous threat, which means the strongest are going to win.”

With all due respect, it is that approach that the opposition, the third party in this House, would have us take. There have been other people who have made the case against the free trade agreement. I want to deal with one of those incidents now.

Last September, Alcan Aluminum Ltd. announced the closing of the only aluminum-foil rolling plant in Canada, located in my constituency and in fact in my residence town of Bracebridge. That plant was closed as the result of a long-term strike, perhaps. It was closed also as a result of a decision by Alcan.

In discussing that decision with the federal government, the mayor of Bracebridge received this reply: “We understand Alcan is restructuring its operations in order to be more competitive in North America as a result of the anticipated free trade agreement with the United States.”

The writer of that letter, and the signature on the letter, is that of Pat Carney, then Minister for International Trade for the government of Canada. When we have a situation in this country where the Conservative Minister for International Trade for the federal government goes on the record as suggesting that the answer to a plant closing in Ontario is the free trade agreement, I think it gives us some indication in a very clear way of what kind of future this province and this country may face under a free trade agreement.

I want also to suggest that there are other people who have voiced their opinions on free trade. I want to quote some of them to you and I want to read them into the record. They are not all Liberals and they are not all from Ontario.

Brian Mulroney said in 1983, “It affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it.” That is Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister of Canada, giving his opinion on free trade.

Joe Clark said in 1983, “Unrestrained free trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear.”

Michael Wilson: There is a name that some of the people on the opposite side of the House may well recognize. Michael Wilson said in 1983, “Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naïve.”

The then Secretary of State of Canada, David Crombie, in referring to free trade: “It is silly. Our natural destiny is to become a global leader, not America’s weak sister.”

Eddie Goodman, another noted Tory: “A Canada-US free trade option must be rejected.”

Hugh Segal: “It is neither in the Tory tradition nor consistent with the Tory defence of Canadian commercial interests,” in reference to free trade.

Here is one I think we should read into the record. In 1985, the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the member for Sarnia said this: “Taking the multilateral route in trade negotiations is the best long-term way for Canada.” I just want to confirm that that was indeed said in 1985 by the member for Sarnia. At that time, granted, he did have another role to play. He is a man who perhaps has not always been consistent in his position and in his opposition to the trade agreement.

The point I make, and I think it is a point we must agree upon, is that this government has consistently voiced its opposition to the free trade agreement. It has made the case and has made the case effectively. Beyond that, it has gone on to suggest that there are other alternatives. Those other alternatives are to continue negotiations through the GATT process, to continue to look for sectoral arrangements which will reduce tariffs and treaties and to expand our trade on an international front. We should recognize that the United States, although it is our largest trading partner, is not our only trading partner, nor should it be now or in the future.

I would urge all members of this Legislature to join with this party in defeating the motion of nonconfidence proposed by the third party. We are consistent in our position. We have made that position clear at all times. We do not change that position for short-term political gain. We stand firm in our opposition to free trade and to this nonconfidence motion.

Mr. Mackenzie: The free trade agreement with the US, initiated and promoted by the federal Conservative government under Brian Mulroney, is a tragedy that simply must not be allowed to happen. The deal was conceived in secret, developed initially in silence and was totally opposite to the publicly stated position of the Prime Minister. It was hidden from the voters in the last election and carries no consensus or mandate from the citizens of Canada. Truly, it can be said to have been conceived in deceit and will probably go down in history for establishing the name “Lyin’ Brian.”

The potential for damage to our people, our cultural and social programs and, yes, our very sovereignty is so great that to have launched such a sellout without a mandate or even a hint of what was to come can be called little short of an act of treason by those responsible.

About the only positive statement one can make is that the Conservative government and its members are true to their agenda and philosophy, a right-wing agenda that calls for deregulation, privatization and free trade. They are also honest and predictable, which is something I cannot say of the Liberal Party. The all-things-to-all-people approach may occasionally buy votes, but there is a price to it and the price is the credibility of the party in terms of people ever knowing where it stands on a fundamental issue. It is really funny-sad that a party can confuse the public without carrying the can for its real philosophy which, in fact, is almost identical to that of the Tories.

An hon. member: How can you say that?

Mr. Mackenzie: How can I say that? Deregulation, privatization and the same unfair tax measures, and where do they really stand on free trade? In fact, the two parties, beholden to the same interests with the same programs, differ only in the extent of straightforwardness.

Let us be clear. The argument is not free trade or no trade: it is fair trade. It has nothing to do with our ability or our need to trade. We have done a tremendous job as a major trading nation, overcoming tariffs, quotas, threats and US and other foreign-country protectionism without destroying our ability to use government intervention and incentives and without selling our country and its resources.

This bilateral free trade deal with the US, which we asked for, as we were reminded down in Washington, carries a heavy price and leaves unanswered crucial questions. The agreement calls for a level playing field, as the Americans like to call it. It is a level playing field with all of the heaters at one end. Take a look at it. Size, climate, low-wage areas, a huge market, cheaper health-pension-welfare plans and poorer safety and health and environmental standards are the heaters at one end of the field. On our side, you can list almost all of the others in reverse: smaller markets, more expensive costs, colder climate.

There are a number of real concerns as well. Even supporters of free trade acknowledge a major disruption of our workforce. How many jobs will be lost as no-longer-necessary branch plants are closed, as the cheaper costs of volume production and main office operations move swiftly across the border? The move to low-wage, right-to-work, sunbelt states is sure to accelerate.

1700

Foreign investment in Canada is almost uncontrolled. Manufacturing, investment, building and production decisions will be made with head-office decisions in the United States as a prime consideration, not the Canadian interest. We will watch the earned profits flow out of the country. There will be wealth produced, but who will get it and who will control it?

The stupidity of the energy agreement defies description. What other country in the world has given up the right to set its own price for its own energy supplies and to make sure that it can supply its own needs first? The potential loss in services, which may be the most serious problem we face because of the uncertainty and the new ground to be broken, must be of concern to all.

The cultural community has effectively outlined its concerns. Auto workers and auto parts companies know what is at stake, when the one example in this country of managed and negotiated trade is effectively undermined. Much of the agricultural community understands the threat to marketing programs. It understands as well, in wine and poultry and other products, that the threats of climate, produce costs and the scale-of-size operations are very real threats.

Even more bizarre is the absolutely vital matter of subsidies. What are subsidies and are our social programs part of the package? Who but Conservatives, totally sold on the trade deal regardless of other people’s concerns, would sign an agreement of such fundamental impact on our country, without any agreement in advance on what the rules are?

We are going to spend five to seven years negotiating what subsidies are, after we put the agreement into place. Those subsidies may very well include some of our social programs. I do not know anybody else who would sign such a contract or negotiate such a contract or agree to it without knowing what the terms were going to be in advance.

Having said all of that, what is the record of the provincial Liberal government when it comes to free trade? Yesterday I asked a question that raised six points. During the election campaign the Premier promised the people of Ontario, and he emphasized it, that there would be no free trade deal if it weakened the auto pact; if it threatened Canada’s cultural identity; if it removed the safeguards for agriculture; if it permitted unrestricted foreign investment; if it prevented reduction of regional economic disparities; if it did not include a binding dispute settlement mechanism, which may be one of the most key issues of all. On election night, the Premier said the citizens of Ontario had endorsed his six bottom-line conditions.

None of those has been met. We have seen backoff after backoff. We now see that we may not be able to challenge in court, or at least the Attorney General is not sure. We cannot, no matter how we question the Premier, get him to give us specifics, and we have laid out some of the things that could be done.

There is no way in good conscience I could support this government in voting. I am voting nonconfidence. Having said that, let me also make it clear -- and there is no question where we stand and I think the public understands it -- that I have no truck with the sellout artists of the Conservative Party. I respect their right to their position, even though I totally reject their arguments, with the sole exception of the nonconfidence in this government.

Let me tell members very clearly, when it comes to free trade and this particular agreement, there is no question in my mind, no question whatsoever, that it is a plague on both their houses. I do not know where the difference is. With the Tories, I know what they are saying. I disagree with them fundamentally and totally, but at least they are up front and honest. I do not know the same with the Liberals. I cannot trust them. I do not know where they stand. I will tell members very frankly that, to me, more dangerous than somebody you know you are fighting is somebody about whom you do not know what the heck he stands for.

There is clearly no solid position on the part of this government in opposition to free trade. If there was, they would have outlined some of the positions they were willing to take. My colleague went through about eight of 12 or 15 specific recommendations, almost every one of which would have established clearly in this province and to the federal government that Ontario was not going to buy this deal. It would have put an end to this agreement long before this.

I suggest that the fear is out there that this government is playing games. When we finally have the agreement in place, which is what they said they had to wait for, we take a look at it and they discover they are going to have difficulty with the court challenge. We are in a position where: “Well, rather than upset the whole applecart in this country, we are now going to say, really, we have done everything we can. We talked tough but we did nothing in terms of concrete action.”

That is the position of this government, and I reject it totally, just as I reject the Tory position in favour of free trade.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If I could ask the indulgence of the House to depart from what has been going on this afternoon to speak to the resolution, what has been happening today has been basically a rehash of exactly what we did in a debate that lasted throughout Christmas and culminated in a vote on January 6 in which this Legislature voted in opposition to free trade. That resolution was conveyed to both the United States government and the federal government.

What we have today is a resolution standing in the name of the leader of the third party in which he says the government has failed to make a convincing case and he also is talking about the economic plans and the launching of trade missions into the United States and saying, in effect, that we, as a government, have not provided for what is effectively going to take place with our largest trading partner.

I would like to address that part of the resolution, and time permitting, I would also like to wrap up with a recap of exactly where we stand on this issue.

Members will know, I am sure, that of all the imports into Canada, 75 per cent of them come into Ontario, and of all the exports from Canada into the United States, 56 per cent of them are from Ontario, which effectively means that we are certainly that country’s largest trading partner. It is something we cherish and something we want to enhance.

Having said all that, we also feel very strongly that any policy that ties us to one trading partner has to have some serious consequences in the long term, so we are very, very committed not only to continuing and enhancing our trade with our largest trading partner, but also to diverging and getting into the Pacific Rim, expanding our contacts in Europe and getting out into that huge world market.

But when we get back to the US and the contention of the leader of the third party that we do not have any trade missions going, we have a part-time person in New York, we are not doing our best to service the United States, which in fact is our largest trading partner, I would like to speak to that.

First, members should know that the ministry has a total staff of 82 devoted to the promotion of exports to the United States. As members can see, this is very effective, because we are by far, or were up until recently, the largest trading partner the United States has. We have been surpassed by Japan, but only recently. That is as a province; as a country, we are still the largest.

These people we have advise and counsel potential Ontario exporters. Of this staff of 82, 26 of them are located in our head office in New York and 56 in our six US trade offices. Members may not even be aware that we have offices in Boston, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Los Angeles and Dallas, and they are very, very active.

In anticipation of the changing and increasing needs of Ontario business and industry and the continuing importance of the US market, at the beginning of 1987-88 my ministry redefined its US trade development strategies. We have the leader of the third party saying we do not have a strategy, so I would like to put into the record exactly what that strategy is.

This redefinition involves a doubling of Queen’s Park professional staff, and we have taken the allocated resources to the United States from 7 to 15 and changed from a geographic representation to a product-sector orientation. This allows each consultant to be responsible for national US export development, as well as joint ventures and licensing for Ontario clients, in a specific product sector.

1710

One that comes to mind and one that I had the honour of participating in just two weeks ago is the aerospace industry. Fifty-three per cent of the aerospace industry in Canada is located in Ontario. We now have specialists who specialize in that and deal with it regardless of where it takes place in the United States, and this has become very effective.

The new strategy and organization are proving beneficial to our clients. Consultants are better able to counsel clients through in-depth sector expertise and are able to take a broader national and longer-term perspective on each industry’s needs and opportunities in the American market. Co-operative relationships with trade associations are much more intensive than ever before, allowing the Ministry of Industry and Trade to leverage its influence to a maximum. It is expected that substantive results from the change in strategic direction for the US section will show in the long term.

Three quarters of the Queen’s Park-based staff and program resources for US trade promotion are focused on high-technology industrial and services exports. Let me share with members what the results of these new strategies are. In 1987-88, sales assists were $438 million, a 25 per cent increase over the previous year. In 1987-88, agents and distributors appointed reached a high of 567, a 68 per cent increase over the previous year. First-time exporters to the United States assisted by my ministry increased to 123.

These results are only part of the picture. In the reorganization of the industry and trade expansion division, which took place on January 1, 1987, the US section assumed a key role in the ministry’s mandate of export promotion and education. This includes identifying potential exporters, motivating and educating Ontario firms to advance into successful first-time exporters into the US border markets and then assisting them to become established throughout the US market.

A key export education program of US trade strategy is NEBS, which stands for new exporters to border states. This program, pioneered by Ontario in 1984, has proved highly successful. In a private survey across Canada, business rated NEBS as one of the two best export programs offered by any level of government anywhere in Canada. It is used in teaching new exporters the basics of exporting to the United States.

The program takes companies to a US entry point for on-the-spot presentations and introduction to the exporting process. Over the past four years, a total of 42 NEBS missions has been organized for over 700 firms. In the last fiscal year, we organized the largest-ever NEBS mission, this one from northern Ontario. NEBS missions were also organized from eastern and southwestern Ontario as well as from the greater Toronto area. Our 1988-89 program is the most ambitious ever, with 13 missions planned.

The new product-sector strategy has led to closer relationships with Ontario industry associations. In 1987-88, a total of four industry-sector export education seminars were successfully held, which focused on US market opportunities.

Mr. Laughren : Monte, give us a break.

Mr. Wildman: Monte, the question is nonconfidence in the government.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If my friends will read the motion, they will see why they are saying there is no confidence: we do not have a strategy for the United States.

The major export education promotion event of the year is Export Trade Month, held in October, to highlight the importance of exporting to the economic health of Ontario and Canada.

I should tell members that in 1984-85 there were 32 trade missions and fairs in the United States, followed by 34 trade missions and fairs in 1985-86. The number of trade missions and fairs to the US in 1986-87 was 37, while there were 32 trade missions and fairs to the US in 1987-88. There are an estimated 40 missions and fairs planned for the US in 1988-89.

In 1988-89, the ministry is planning to bring in over 100 US buyers and purchasing agents to visit potential Ontario suppliers and trade fairs and shows showcasing Ontario goods and services.

The reason I wanted that on the record, and to address the questions that came from the official opposition, is that if you read the motion of nonconfidence, the basis of it says in effect that we do not have a strategy for dealing with our largest customer, the United States, that we do not have any trade fairs or trade missions planned, while other provinces are very active.

I should tell all members that without question, and they can ask anybody in the international trade field, Ontario is far and away the most active province in Canada when it comes to expanding not only into the US market but into other markets as well.

I am sure members will know, and maybe they do not, that we also have trade offices in London; Paris; Frankfurt; Seoul, Korea; Singapore; Nanjing. China; Tokyo, and we are opening up one July 1 in New Delhi, India. What that is doing is getting the message out and getting trade missions with Ontario manufacturers to all of the markets in the world.

In the time that I have remaining. I would like to address some of the comments that were made by various members of both opposition parties dealing with the free trade agreement.

One, the member for Cochrane South held out a newspaper release that took place before the election and he said there would be no deal. I should remind members that when the Premier first met with the first ministers in Halifax shortly after his election, he was told by the Progressive Conservative Prime Minister that he would have the right to veto the agreement.

Mr. Wildman: That’s what he said to us.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: He was told that by the Progressive Conservative Prime Minister. At that time, he was also told that the auto pact would not be on the table. He was also told by the Progressive Conservative Prime Minister that energy would not be on the table. He was also told by the Progressive Conservative Prime Minister that any deal that did not provide security of access was not going to meet Canada’s needs.

After the election, when we went to see the elements of the agreement, maybe not to our surprise but to our chagrin, we found that the document had been so crafted that the veto power that had been promised had been taken away. We also found that the auto pact was on the table and had been severely gutted. We also found that energy was not only on the table but had been presented in such a way that it had taken control of our own energy policy away from us.

The other aspects of this agreement were similarly not adhered to in what we had been told we were going to get. The most critical one of all was that we were told we were going to get security of access. I am sure all members will know that means we were to have exemption from countervail and antidumping legislation.

As a matter of fact, Simon Reisman, the chief federal government negotiator, when he was asked about countervail and antidumping, said, “Any agreement which did not restrict the use of US antidumping and countervail statutes would not be worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell.”

And what do we have? We have an agreement that does not give us anything we did not have before. That is not the opinion of the Liberal government, it is not the opinion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and it is not the opinion of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) by themselves. This is a legal opinion presented to us by two of the most prestigious law firms in either country, Blake Cassels in Canada and Hogan and Hartson in the United States. We have taken a look at it. We have asked whether or not there has been a change, and there has not been.

Now the question has come up, “What are you going to do about it?” I say to members that we are not pleased with the fact that this document has been crafted in such a way that there is very little opportunity for us to challenge it at this time. However, and the Premier has stated this on several occasions, we have the Attorney General and his advisers examining all of the options that are available to us. I will say to all members in this House that, notwithstanding what is going to transpire over the next little while, we are committed to our opposition to the free trade pact.

1720

I would also like to correct a statement that was made by the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) in his conversation, in which he said we had been saying all along that we are opposed to free trade. I want to be on the record, where we have been before, that we are not opposed to the economic concept of free trade. We are opposed to this deal because we think it is a bad deal; it is a deal in which we have given up far too much for what we got. I want to state again that we will not implement any legislation that is required and we will maintain our opposition to this agreement.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to take the opportunity to join in this discussion we have had this afternoon on the fundamental question which we debate from time to time in this House: whether we have confidence in this particular government and, in particular, whether we have confidence in the way in which the government has handled the issue of free trade.

I cannot resist beginning by saying that we have been, I think it is fair to say, arguing in this House for several years now precisely what the government of Ontario either could do or would do to deal with the federal negotiations on free trade.

I want to simply recall the circumstances in which we found ourselves in 1985. First, we had the government of Mr. Davis and then the government of Mr. Miller, both of which basically endorsed the strategy of beginning discussions with the United States at the national level in order to implement a free trade agreement.

When the campaign of 1985 came along, which was just a little over three years ago, the leader of the Liberal Party, who is now the Premier of the province, made it very clear that he was opposed to a comprehensive, bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States. After his election, he slowly but surely began to move away from that position; indeed, I think we can say that this is a government which has lost its conviction by elections.

The first election was one which saw a minority House in this assembly, in which the Premier of the province consistently, between 1985 and 1987, had a simple, single message for those of us who told him he could do more. That message all along was: “Don’t worry. You’re in good hands. Don’t worry. I’ve got a veto.” The Premier was always willing to say, “We have the ability to stop this deal if it is a bad deal; but if we can get a good deal, then who could possibly be opposed?” That, if I may say so, is the position I think has consistently been taken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

We have all recognized in this House, in the many questions I posed to the government prior to 1987, that the position of the government as expressed by its ministers and indeed as expressed by the minister, who was at that time the Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations, obviously was: “Don’t be extremist. Don’t be ideological. Trust us. Take our pragmatic stance, and we will assure you that if the deal is not a good deal, we’ll be able to stop it in its tracks.”

I could quote headline after headline in which the Premier told this House and told me in this House that he had a veto. When I raised questions about the auto pact, he said: “Don’t worry. It won’t be in the deal. In any event, if it is in the deal, don’t be concerned, because I can stop the deal.”

That is what he said. That was the position of the Liberal government between 1985 and 1987. If I may say so, we warned the government, rather consistently and with a sense of foreboding, that if it did not begin to mobilize opposition to the deal, to the concept, to the whole charade of an arrangement between Canada and the United States on trade, we would end up with a deal which we could not stop.

We warned the government of that. We said, “What are you going to do once the deal comes down and all that momentum is in place?” The Premier kept saying: “Don’t worry. I want to assure you and other honourable members that you are in good hands. We will stop the deal.” That was the alleged voice of pragmatism, the practical voice of the Premier.

Then we had an election, and how well I recall 1 August 1987, a short few months ago, when the Premier announced downstairs in the media studio that he needed a mandate on free trade.

Mr. Smith: He already got it.

Mr. B. Rae: The member for Lambton says quite rightly that he got it. The member for Lambton is right, he got his mandate on free trade. The problem is, he has never been prepared to use that mandate once he got it. That is the problem we have.

So we ran the campaign. I must confess, politically a realist from the very beginning, I knew the state of opinion in this province with respect to free trade and the way in which people would perceive a battle between the provincial government and the federal government on this issue. We could all see what was happening as we were campaigning. People were saying:

“Well, we like what you are saying on car insurance, and we like what you are doing on X issue or Y issue, but we are still worried about free trade. That is what we are worried about, and we want to give David Peterson that mandate.”

That is what happened, on the basis of advertisements which my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside has quoted on so many occasions -- the bottom line, the six conditions he outlined in the Windsor speech. Then he went to the brewery in Barrie and added a seventh condition. Whatever conditions he might have added, he made it very clear from the beginning that this was Ontario’s bottom line, and Ontario would stop the deal. He kept on using the phrase “No deal.”

As soon as the election is over -- in fact, a few days later -- the deal is consummated; it is signed. It is a short document, a few pages, agreement in principle. What is the reaction of the Premier? “Well, I don’t know if I have a veto any more. I said I did, but now I am not so sure.” Then he said, “But before I make a final decision, I have to see the final agreement.”

My colleagues and I raised questions in this House, trying to point out that the government, which apparently had been elected to do something, was increasingly reluctant to do it, and each step of the way the Premier said: “I am waiting. I am holding my fire.” This is a man who was holding his fire from 1985. “I have to wait for the final agreement.”

There were several months, as everybody will recall, when the negotiators were negotiating and coming up with the final agreement. Finally in December 1987, just before Christmas, a few short months ago, we had the full, final free trade agreement -- a lengthy, comprehensive document. The Premier’s response: “I have to study it. I have to see what form the legislation is going to take before I can take a final position.”

Again we waited. During that time, this House debated and passed a resolution in which the Liberals said, “We reserve the right to oppose,” and “We will not be bound to implement,” words that I described at the time as weasel words and sucker clauses, because they do not tell you what they are going to do and do not say what it is they are going to do; so nothing changes.

Then we have the process where the government says: “We can’t launch a constitutional challenge on the basis of an agreement. We have to wait until we finally see the actual legislation.” Finally, we got the legislation, presented by Mr. Crosbie last week, Bill C-130. What is the response of the government of the day to that? It is to say: “Well, the legislation isn’t the final word. We have to wait for the regulations before we can move.”

We go from a government in 1985 saying, “Trust us,” to a government in 1987 saying, “Give us a mandate,” to a government at Christmastime saying, “We need to see the legislation,” to a government which, having seen the legislation, is still not prepared to act.

1730

In all conscience, it is not conceivable for me to give confidence to a government that has conducted itself in this way on this issue. I take my hat off to the public relations department of the Liberal Party. The day the government announces it is not going to be doing anything, on which it releases its so-called constitutional audit, at the end of the day, having denounced the document, having denounced the agreement, having said all the terrible things that would happen to Confederation if the bill were ever enforced, the government turns around to say: “Well, perhaps it will go to court, but that will depend on whether some provinces want to do it. It will depend on whether some private individuals choose to do it.”

In other words, when the caving in and the backing down were as apparent as ever, the headline in the paper was “Free Trade ‘Black Cloud’ over Canada Peterson Says.” So one can congratulate the Liberal Party for its public relations capacity, but when it comes to integrity in government, when it comes to fighting on behalf of those Canadians who are opposed to this agreement and when it comes to mobilizing every capacity and will of government to stop this agreement, then the Liberal Party of this province does not deserve the confidence of the people of this province.

There are many members opposite who are in favour of free trade. There are many business people who are close in their ties to the Liberal Party who are in favour of free trade. There are many corporate interests which are in favour of free trade, and yes, there are many corporate interests which are even in favour of this deal. What I cannot respect is a Premier who says, “We could get a better deal than this.”

I am going to be quite blunt and I am going to say that I do not think it is terribly realistic for Canadians to think that there is somehow a magically better deal under the rubric of free trade.

People say, “The Americans haven’t given us guaranteed access to their markets.” Well, surprise, surprise. Why should the American Congress lie down when American workers are being laid off and say, “We are going to completely give up our right to intervene in our own economy.” No self-respecting parliament would do that. No self-respecting legislature would do that. I cannot ask the American Congress to do something I would not be prepared to do as a legislator of this province and that I do not think should be done in the Parliament of Canada.

I say to those who say, “Well, we’re in favour of free trade, but it’s some other deal out there that we’re going to get,” that this is an approach I cannot respect. I say to this government that whatever the headlines may say, I think the opposition of this government to free trade has been, is and will always be a complete and total sham, a fake from beginning to end; a fake because this government never intended to stop free trade, a fake because this government never intended to do anything to stop the deal, a fake because this government knew in 1985 that it could not or would not or should not do anything.

It has not changed its mind since 1985. It was precisely of the same mind in 1985 as it is in 1988; that is, that it will rhetorically oppose, that it will posture, that it will present itself as an opposition, but that it will not in fact do anything.

If I may just close, when it comes to the question of a constitutional reference, which is the last possible arrow in the quiver of government that this government has, what was the response of the Attorney General today? He said: “Well, the legislation, in fact, doesn’t assert, enforce a federal right. The federal Parliament simply reserves the right to do certain things.”

I want to say to the Attorney General, and I would offer this point to him quite simply, that if you are reserving the right to do something, you are asserting in legal terms that you have the right to reserve that right. The question that can readily be determined by a court is whether in fact the federal government of Canada has the right to intervene in provincial jurisdiction in the name of international trade.

That is the question: whether it will, to use the words of the old reference in 1981, affect the relationship between legislatures and affect the power of legislatures in our Confederation. That is the question. That can be determined. The Supreme Court of Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada have the right, and I would even say the obligation, to tell us whether or not the federal government has the ability to do this.

I think, frankly, it is nothing short of shocking that this government has chosen, even at this late date, to back away from the very least it could do to indicate its opposition and to say it takes that opposition seriously. These guys are not prepared to offend the big boys. They are not prepared to offend the powerful interests. They are prepared to talk about how they feel, but they are not prepared to intervene on behalf of the people of this province and make sure and do everything in their capacity to see that the deal does not happen.

That is the choice between us, and that is why, as I say, there is no way I am going to vote confidence in the Liberal government of Ontario.

Mr. Brandt: I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate since I moved the motion. I also welcome the opportunity to put forward the views of our party with respect to the reasons we feel compelled to bring this nonconfidence motion before this parliament at this particular time.

We did not do so lightly. We did so after a great deal of thought and with a great deal of concern with respect to the proper and appropriate way in which to proceed with this particular issue. Our motion of nonconfidence was brought forward singularly because we have in fact lost confidence in this government’s ability to deliver in either one direction or another with respect to the free trade question.

What is confusing to both of the opposition parties is that when you take a look at the policies of this government as they relate to the free trade issue, it is difficult to determine, difficult to understand whether the government of the day is in favour of free trade and therefore should be taking the necessary steps to prepare this province for a free trade agreement, or alternatively, whether this government is going to be consistent with the views that it expressed during the 1987 election and that have been talked about at great length during the course of the debates in this House, and oppose the deal.

What concerns us and why we have in fact been forced to bring forward a motion of nonconfidence is very specifically that this government has not taken action in either direction. They have not taken action to indicate they are in favour or that they are opposed. What they are attempting to do, in the way that only Liberals can feel comfortable, is to take the middle of the road and bring about no action whatever.

I have to tell the members that particular decision on the part of this government could be the most dangerous step of all, because those of us who favour the free trade deal are quite prepared to admit openly in this chamber that there are adjustments that are going to be needed. When we take a look at the deal, on balance, we feel this deal will bring a multitude of benefits to the people of Ontario. We feel there are some very substantive gains that can be realized by the people of this province, and I want to talk about some of those very briefly today, if I have that opportunity.

But you know, I would ask myself, if I were a member of the 94 Liberals who sit over there and who are marching in lockstep to the tune of the Premier, who is playing the role of the drummer on this particular issue, why is it that the largest single province in the entire country happens to oppose a trade deal when fully seven out of 10 provinces are in agreement with the deal and the eighth province, namely, Manitoba, has a Premier now who also has indicated he is in favour of the deal?

If I may use as an analogy the two parents who were standing at the side of the road watching the parade go by, and as the parade went by they said, “Look at the parade; everybody is out of step but our boy Johnny,” it is the same thing in this particular instance. According to the kind of logic we have been exposed to in this particular assembly, the kind of logic that has been expressed by the members on that side of the House, very simply it seems all of the other premiers, everybody else in the country, must be wrong because we in Ontario must be right.

1740

Well, I think the government is wrong, and, by this nonconfidence motion that we are bringing forward and that I am proud to move, what we are saying to the government, very directly, is that this government has an obligation to act and it has not.

Let me give members some of the facts on why my party feels so strongly about entering into a trade deal. Ontario sells more to the United States of America than all the other provinces in Canada combined. Now, that should frighten members because some of that export business is at risk and it is at risk because there is, in fact, protectionist sentiment in the United States.

Surely the Liberal members read the newspapers which indicate very directly that the United States is quite prepared to erect protectionist barriers against the kind of trade we are doing at this time with the United States of America, and those trade barriers could very well cost us industries, could cost us jobs and could cost us economic activity with our largest trading partner.

We hear it said on that side of the floor: “Well, there are alternatives to continuing to do business with the United States. We should not be so singularly attached to that market when there are other alternatives that we should pursue.” I take great pride in the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and others have quoted a former speech that I made when I said, and I quote myself from 1985, “Taking a multilateral trade route is the best route for Canada.” I take pride in having said that because I want the members of the Liberal Party to know that there is not one single clause in this agreement which indicates that we cannot pursue multilateral trade activities as a result of signing the Canada-US trade pact.

Does that come as a surprise to members? Does it come as a surprise when I stand here publicly and I repeat that I too think we have perhaps too much dependence on trade with the United States, that we should, in fact, try to divert some of that trade to other countries of the world, and, guess what, we have been trying to do that for some long time?

Initiatives on the part of Canada and initiatives on the part of the government of Ontario have been focused on that option for some long number of years, decades in fact, in an attempt to do business with the European common market and in an attempt to do business with the Far Eastern countries. All those countries of the world that are, in fact, doing two-way trade with many nations of the world are logical customers for Ontario’s and Canada’s products. But the problem we find is that, because some of them have already entered into trade agreements with member nations, such as the European common market, and because of distance factors with others, we find ourselves in a position where we cannot be competitive in some of those particular markets.

So we happen to be a continental trader at the moment. We happen to be a country and a province which is in great part dependent upon trade with the US and, surprisingly, we are doing quite well at the moment with that particular trade.

For those members who lack confidence in Canada, for those weak-willed and spineless individuals who do not have the guts to go forward with the trade agreement with the United States, let me tell them that, at the moment, we happen to have a surplus in trade with the US of some $20 billion annually, and that surplus is one that I want to protect with a trade agreement. That surplus and the jobs that are inherent in that particular amount of economic activity that we are doing with the United States are vitally and critically important to Canada and to Ontario.

The government would put that at risk by hoping -- now listen to this for a really tough position. This is the Liberal position of the day: “We believe the status quo is the answer.” In other words, everything is going to be all right. Well, ask the pork producers when protectionist walls were put up against pork. Ask those who are in the fish industry. Ask those who are in shakes and shingles and softwood lumber and the steel industry.

Ask them in fact what happened when we were blind-sided because of the lack of having an economic agreement that we could fall back on. It cost us jobs in this province, it cost us jobs throughout Canada and it will cost us more unless we address our attention to the real need of the day, which is to secure a trade agreement with the United States.

We have lost confidence in this government because of those reasons and because of the reasons I wanted to mention with respect to some of the red herrings which not only this government but also others who are in opposition to the trade deal have put before the people of Ontario as being factual evidence of why we should not enter into a deal. Let me cite as an example the sort of red herring I am talking about.

The former Minister of the Environment of the federal Liberal government, until the year 1984, a gentleman by the name of Charles Caccia, has entered into the debate some concerns about the export of water to the United States, indicating that Canada should not enter into an agreement with the United States which allows us to export that very valuable natural resource.

Let me put that one to rest, because that is one of many of those red herrings which have been brought forward not only by members opposite but also by members in the federal House as well. There is nothing in the trade deal which allows for the export of water. We will not be exporting that natural resource. The only thing that is in the trade deal and the only thing that is being addressed as a matter of any consequence in that deal is bottled water, which is an export commodity we should be interested in selling when the opportunity presents itself.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: What blind faith you have.

Mr. Brandt: The Minister of Agriculture and Food says “blind faith.” He has blind faith by not entering into a deal.

The other red herring which comes up frequently from the members opposite is the question of social services. We have heard them say repeatedly that our social services are at risk, our culture is at risk, our environment is at risk, our national identity is at risk, all of which is nothing more than nonsense. None of those things is at risk.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: Let me tell the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) that the biggest risk to his ministry, to the funding he gives to the underprivileged in Ontario, is a lack of economic activity to pay the bills. That is the biggest risk to his ministry. He shakes his head no. Liberals have never worried much about deficits and spending money, but I will tell him that there are people who are required to generate the wealth which goes to his ministry which is then redistributed to those who need that assistance.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Do you want to compare our programs with the United States? Do you want to compare what we have with what the US has?

Mr. Brandt: The minister now comes forward with the gem of them all.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: Now we have them going over there. The minister comes forward with: “Do we want social services at a level comparable to those in the United States?” No, Minister, we do not want a level of social services comparable to those in the United States. The next thing the minister is going to move towards --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Sarnia address his comments to the chair, please?

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: It appears I have some of the members opposite agitated, as well they should be, because I would be embarrassed if I had to take the position they have taken. I would be totally embarrassed.

To give another example of the kind of nonsense that comes forward from members on that side of the House, they also indicate, as the minister did a moment ago, that we will have a level of social services that will go down to the level of the United States.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: That flag will be at every table of negotiations from now on.

Mr. Brandt: There is the mindset of the Minister of Community and Social Services. The mindset is that if you enter into what is strictly an economic deal, it automatically means a takeover.

I will tell him it is not a takeover. He is not going to get US gun laws in Canada. He is not going to get US environmental programs. He is not going to get any of the level of US services. None of that is going to happen. Just calm down.

What we are going to get is access to an American market which in fact generates a lot, if not most, of the economic activity that this province so desperately needs.

1750

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: You know, if you take a look at the various studies that have been undertaken with respect to this particular question, if you look at --

Mr. Fleet: Look at the facts.

Mr. Brandt: I wish the member would not let the facts bother him, because one of the facts I want to present this afternoon is the study that was undertaken by the C. D. Howe Institute. What it indicated --

Some hon. members: Oh, yes.

Mr. Brandt: This is not a Conservative firm. The C. D. Howe Institute is an independent group that comes forward with opinions on public policy. What it said, very simply, was that under a free trade agreement, jobs would be improved and increased and consumer prices would go down. That is what the studies have indicated.

Time has just about expired --

Mr. Speaker: The time has expired.

Mr. Brandt: -- but I want to say to the members opposite that I appreciate their kind attention. I hope that I have changed the minds of some of them with respect to this deal. We stand proudly behind and proudly in support of a nonconfidence motion because --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order. According to the standing orders, we will now deal with the motion of nonconfidence placed by Mr. Brandt.

The House divided on Mr. Brandt’s motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Brandt, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham. Cureatz. Eves, Grier, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston. R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland. McCague. McLean, Morin-Strom, Pope, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Swart, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Hosek, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter;

LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, F. J., Sola, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wong, Wrye.

Ayes 27; nays 82.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

May 31, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

USE OF LOTTERY PROFITS

SOCIAL SERVICES

SALE OF DRUG-RELATED EQUIPMENT

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

BLUE MOON

BARBARA TURNBULL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

SEXUAL ASSAULT / VIOLENCES SEXUELLES

TECHNOLOGY FUND

SENIOR CITIZENS’ MONTH

RESPONSES

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

TECHNOLOGY FUND

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

SEXUAL ASSAULT

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

SENIOR CITIZENS’ MONTH

TECHNOLOGY FUND

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

SCHOOL FUNDING

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

MINISTRY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

NATIONAL SALES TAX

LABOUR DISPUTE

NATURAL GAS SUPPLY

ONTARIO PLACE CORP.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL RECORDS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GOTTSCHEER RELIEF ASSOCIATION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES