Journal des débats 1984-mai-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I know the House will be interested to recall that it was 14 years ago this week that the Dunlop plant in the riding of Riverdale closed.

I had a call from Phil Japp, the head at that time of the United Rubber Workers of America local that tried to fight the battle against plant closings on that occasion. In the midst of the continuous plant closings in Ontario I know we would want to recall that particular event and to deplore, if I may say so, the lack of advance in legislative protection for workers that has taken place since the enactments of the provisions of the Employment Standards Act after that particular disastrous event.

BICENTENNIAL PUBLICATION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege or something: Perhaps you will permit me to draw members' attention to the fine bicentennial publication of the Welland Guardian-Express, which I have distributed to their seats.

It shows not only the importance of the Welland-Port Colborne area in the history of the province but also the quality of the craftsmanship and the journalism of the workers who have been on strike and locked out by the Thomson chain's Welland-Port Colborne Tribune for almost 20 months now.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

STATUS OF RURAL WOMEN

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, many people in this province, particularly those in our larger urban areas, feel life has stood still on the family farm. Many of them have a romanticized view of life on the farm, seeing it as a haven from the stresses and strains of contemporary life.

But as the members of this House know, the farm is not immune to these modem pressures. It has not escaped the successive waves of change that have engulfed our society over the last three decades. Indeed, the people of Ontario's farms are subject to the same pressures and the same demands as the rest of society, plus a range of others that are unique to their lifestyle.

Nowhere does the weight of this responsibility fall more heavily than on the shoulders of farm women. Rural women are today finding themselves attempting to retain the values and the advantages of traditional farm life while at the same time trying to cope with unprecedented social, psychological and economic challenges and opportunities.

The agrarian rural community Ontario knew 30 years ago has evolved into a complex rural society with larger and more highly capitalized farms. Agriculture today is a big business that requires the use of sophisticated technology and sound investment and management decisions.

The population shifts in our rural areas have been dramatic. Rural people made up only 18.2 per cent of Ontario's population in 1981, compared to 29.8 percent in 1951. During those 30 years, the number of people on our farms decreased from more than 700,000 to about 390,000.

We wanted to examine these changes and their implications, and to document and assess the priorities and aspirations of the rural women of this province. For these reasons, my ministry undertook this study and commissioned this report, Women in Rural Life -- The Changing Scene, which I am tabling today in English and in French.

The profile of today's rural women is much like that of their urban counterparts. They have the same goals and desires and face many of the same problems. They wish to be recognized and treated as equals in the home and the business world, both on and off the farm. The majority of rural women today work outside the home, either full-time or part-time. More than 70 per cent of farm women in the 20-to-44 age bracket are in the paid work force. Like women everywhere, many have to hold off-farm jobs out of economic necessity. Some choose to work for reasons of career advancement and personal fulfilment.

Added to the pressures of being homemaker, mother and wage earner, women on the farm work right alongside their husbands as labourers and managers of their farm businesses. It is no wonder rural women feel there are not enough hours in the day. Estimates of the amount of time they spend on child-rearing and homemaking, farm work and off-farm employment vary from 80 to over 100 hours a week. For today's rural women, life on the farm is not only a full-time job; it is two or more full-time jobs.

Activities such as taking courses or enrolling children in recreational or special programs are complicated by the lack of time available for these. Also, farm women often have to drive long distances to participate, further cutting into what little leisure time they may have. Moreover, this isolation complicates the provision of support programs that people in larger urban centres can sometimes take for granted -- day care, health and social services, such as family counselling.

These women also have justifiable concerns about their financial security and their equality in the eyes of the law. They want to be recognized as full partners or, in some cases, sole proprietors of farming enterprises. They want an end to being treated as appendages of their husbands, especially by financial institutions.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Then why does the government not allow them partnerships?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The rest of the members of the House are interested in this subject. I wish the member for Rainy River were as interested as we are.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister is being hypocritical. He will not allow them to be partners with their husbands on the farm.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The report documents the frustrations and the stresses of rural life today. The rural women participating in this study were quite candid about the challenges they and the members of their families face. I believe this study will be tremendously helpful to the government in many areas of policy formation and the setting of our priorities.

I am pleased to announce a provincial farm women's conference, as recommended in the report, will be held on June 21, 1984, here in Toronto at the Constellation Hotel. Among those attending will be the rural women and groups who submitted briefs or made presentations at regional meetings during the study. In addition, we will invite representatives from Ontario's rural, agricultural and agribusiness organizations, as well as those from government agencies, educational institutions and research groups involved in women's issues.

This conference will provide a forum for rural women to discuss the findings and recommendations of the report and to develop and debate further proposals and directions. We in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food believe we all have an obligation to ensure that the rural women of Ontario can share equally and justly in the society to which they and their families continue to make such tremendous contributions. The report and the provincial conference for farm women are, I believe, reflections of this belief.

2:10 p.m.

STUDENT PARLIAMENT

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a moment today to acknowledge, on behalf of all the members of the House, the highly successful model parliament that was conducted here yesterday by the Ontario Secondary School Students' Association, By all accounts, and I emphasize the word "all," the day was more successful than its organizers had hoped for. I know the real members of the assembly were delighted with and, I think, sir, in some cases, just a little in awe of the organization and presentation skills of these bright and energetic young people.

We all, therefore, would like to thank the OSSSA for its support of the day, particularly for all the advance work done before the one-day mock parliament. We would also like to thank the Ontario Secondary School Headmasters' Council for its co-operation in allowing the students to dedicate their time to the preparations.

Somewhere in the gallery today is Brian Amero from Cambridge, whose extended efforts as leader of the OSSSA committee organizing the event over the past several months cannot be sufficiently appreciated by the members here, the student members yesterday and the headmasters as well. With Brian are some students from across Ontario who put much time and energy and a good deal of spirit into the model parliament project. They truly did make it a model in the best sense of the word and we welcomed them yesterday and welcome them again today. We are confident their principals and teachers will not allow their work on this project to detract from their year's grades as the students go home to end their term.

My ministry was delighted to have been able to sponsor this first model parliament of students to have taken place here in this chamber in a very long time. This very special bicentennial activity was made possible through the co-operation of the Speaker and his staff, the clerks and the pages. In this regard, the students would like me especially to thank Mr. McFedries of the Clerk's office who guided them through the procedurally flawless day.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, might I, on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, associate myself with the very excellent and timely remarks of the Minister of Education. She has spoken very appropriately on this matter.

I was here yesterday to take in some of the proceedings and, like all other members who attended, I was very impressed. For example, I was impressed that a connection of mine, who served as Premier for the day, answered a question on at least one occasion and deferred on others. We in the Liberal Party believe it was a first-class performance. They were, as the Minister of Education noted, a model to all and sundry.

I must say in resuming my seat that as I looked at so many of those very bright young men and women, I thought of how they might do what some of the rest of us did and see if they can proceed directly from school to this place.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I was able to spend some time here yesterday and I was delighted to see the assembly in action. It was an interesting assembly for a number of reasons. First, the assembly was more representative of the province than we are. That is a statement all of us have to bear in mind. Second, they were here not only for question period, but they were here, all of them, for the whole day, which itself is something of a --

An hon. member: Including the Premier.

Mr. Rae: That is right, including the Premier.

I want to congratulate the people who participated, but I also want to suggest to the minister, and I hope she will take this suggestion seriously, that we should be looking at a week during which the student parliament can really be given a chance to work at a time when we are not sitting, or even when we are sitting if the government does not have anything for us to do, as has been the case the last few weeks. I hope the minister will take that suggestion seriously. This should not be a one-shot thing. It should be the beginning of something and not the end of something, because I felt it was a very exciting experience and adds very much not only to the educational experience of students but also to their political experience, which is extremely important.

Congratulations to the students and organizers for a wonderful day. Let us hope we can repeat it in a bigger and better way next year.

VISITORS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I would like to ask all members of the Legislature Assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery the mayor of Lahr, West Germany, His Worship Mayor Werner Dietz, and Mrs. Dietz.

Mayor Dietz is visiting the city of Belleville, Lahr's twin city, to arrange "friendship flights" between the two cities this coming August and is the guest today of the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil).

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that in the gallery we also have the mayor of Belleville, His Worship George Zegouras.

DEBRIEFING AFTER INTERVIEW

Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.

Last Thursday, after question period, I received a delegation of three representatives of the Ontario Federation of Labour in my office. They were Jan Morrell, Cathie Hall and Sheila Kelly. I met with them at their request and I was pleased to do so.

They indicated that the purpose of their visit was to discuss with me details of their current campaign for women and affirmative action.

It was with considerable consternation and distress that I read in the Hansard report of the legislative debate that took place in this chamber on Tuesday evening that it is entirely probable my interview with the OFL representatives was taped and was later debriefed to members of the New Democratic Party caucus.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Martel: What do they call that in the United States?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Dirty tricks.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Scrivener: According to the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), and I am quoting from his remarks as reported in Hansard: "I will qualify it to the extent that I sat in for two hours on a debriefing. It was absolutely excellent. There were 97 women and three men there plus officials of the Ontario Federation of Labour. It was a debriefing of the people who were canvassing. They taped some of it."

At no time was I informed by the OFL delegation in my office that the conversation was being taped or that it would be reported to the NDP caucus.

If the account as reported by the member for Hamilton East and as recorded in Hansard is true, then I have to express to you, Mr. Speaker, my shock, consternation and disappointment at the discourtesy of this action, not only to me but to other members of this Legislature who were interviewed, and to protest the obvious breach of my privilege as a member of the Legislature.

Therefore, I would ask you to investigate this matter and place your ruling concerning privilege before this House.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, it is not often I join with the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) in expressing a concern, but I think it is a legitimate point of privilege.

Apparently, what has happened is that first of all, we received a letter dated March 12, 1984, from Cliff Pilkey, president of the OFL. Mr. Pilkey asked that representatives of all parties meet with and discuss certain issues with a delegation from the OFL affirmative action campaign group of the autumn of 1983.

As a representative of one riding in this province, I felt an obligation to chat with those people about the issues. I was under the distinct impression that Ontario Federation of Labour representatives were in my office, not secret operatives from the New Democratic Party.

I listened to the member for Hamilton East. All members of this House will remember he is the member who expressed such concern about Securicor Investigation and Security Ltd. I heard the member for Hamilton East talk about a debriefing session. In other words, those representatives did not go to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) or to the Liberal critic for the field of labour. At least some of them hightailed it immediately to the office of the Labour critic for the New Democratic Party for a two-hour debriefing session.

He also mentioned the use of tapes. Apparently, they have tapes, transcripts and so on. The point is we have approached the Ontario Federation of Labour, as a group that speaks for those under its jurisdiction in the province. I hope the president, Cliff Pilkey, will dissociate himself from this activity which involves an immediate debriefing for the NDP caucus as a result of the discussions that were held with us.

What will happen as a result is the avenues of consultation that are available with the government caucus and the caucus of the official opposition will disappear because the NDP has used the Ontario Federation of Labour, much to the chagrin, no doubt, of Cliff Pilkey.

I think the member for Hamilton East should apologize to the House.

The Acting Speaker: On this matter of personal privilege I will allow one more speaker, the member for Hamilton East, realizing that the chair is not in a position to act on this matter.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear there are absolutely no apologies from the member for Hamilton East.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Another class act.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Just resign.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I trust the member for Hamilton East will not be disconcerted by these outbursts.

Mr. Mackenzie: The only thing I am amazed at is the sensitivity. I do not think I have ever had as much fun in my life.

I want to make it clear that some people do not listen very well. What I said in this House was that I had the privilege of sitting in for two hours on a debriefing that was done by the organization. It was not something we had anything to do with, nor were they in my office other than for an interview such as was done with the rest of the members.

Also, I never indicated they had taped any of the sessions with the members. I would not know that. If they had, it would be serious.

Mr. Wrye: Read the words. You said it.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has the floor.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Will all members give the member for Hamilton East an opportunity to speak on this point of personal privilege.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would also recommend to all honourable members of the House that it is the right of organizations to ask a series of questions of members of this House when dealing with something as important as equal pay --

Mr. Bradley: It does not say "NDP" on this. It says "OFL".

Mr. Mackenzie: Does the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) want me to say what he had to say?

The Acting Speaker: Order. We want to get on with question period. We have a busy afternoon. Will the member for Hamilton East please complete his statement.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: I think I have the floor on the point of order. If members had read the notice that was sent to them requesting the meeting with all members of the House, they would know it listed they were going to have a debriefing following the sessions.

Mr. Bradley: With the NDP.

Mr. Mackenzie: No. The purpose of that --

Mr. Bradley: What does it say in here? Tell the truth.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for St. Catharines will resume his seat.

Mr. Bradley: Tell the truth.

Mr. Mackenzie: There is some defensiveness down there, and well there should be.

The Acting Speaker: I do not want a long speech. The member can close off at this point.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am being a little provoked, Mr. Speaker.

All I want to say is that to the best of my knowledge, there was no taping of any member. There was a debriefing, which is legitimate, so the organization would know the position of the members of this House. It was done very well and thoroughly. That is what I sat in on, and I have nothing to apologize for.

Interjections.

Mr. Bradley: On a new point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: May I suggest the member bring it up at some other time?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for St. Catharines on a very brief two-second point of privilege.

Mr. Bradley: I will make it very brief. The member for Hamilton East said it was understood there would be a debriefing session. Nowhere in this letter from Cliff Pilkey does it talk about a debriefing session for the NDP. They are using them as NDP operatives. In the United States they would be condemning Nixon for that.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I recognize the member for York South (Mr. Rae) in response to this point and then I am leaving it.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, obviously there are a lot of members who do not want their publicly expressed views with respect to women's issues to be publicly known outside the framework of this Legislature. The members --

Mr. Wrye: It was a private meeting.

Mr. Rae: What is private about equal pay for work of equal value, Mr. Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have called order many times and members --

Mr. Riddell: Tell him to sit down. They have done the labour movement a disservice.

Mr. Martel: Oh, you should talk.

Mr. Riddell: The labour movement should throw you out.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I am not being heard. I have called order now. If the member for York South will just take a few moments, then we can begin with question period.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out two facts in response to the alleged information put on the record by the member for St. Catharines.

It is my understanding the Liberal and Conservative women's caucuses were invited to the lobby and the conference. It is also my understanding the debriefing was public and was on a publicly released agenda. There is nothing private or secretive about what took place. What took place is a matter of public record, and members should not be ashamed of their publicly expressed views.

2:30 p.m.

Ms. Copps: On a new point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It is quite clear to all members who participated in the discussions with the Ontario Federation of Labour, myself included, that the member misled the House. I am proud of all the opinions I have stated to the federation and elsewhere, but the member for Hamilton East today has misled the House by stating that the debriefing was a public invitation tendered by the federation. He should withdraw that.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) will withdraw the statement that has just been made. The member is aware of the rules of the House and of the terms just used in her remarks. I ask her to understand the parliamentary rules of this Legislature. The terms she just used are not acceptable in this House. Would she please withdraw them.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the member is not telling the truth I have no other recourse than to call him to question. He has misled the House and I stand by those remarks.

The Acting Speaker: Order. This is not acceptable. The member for Hamilton Centre surely does not want to have the Speaker order the use of the new sword of the Sergeant at Arms. I would make a final request to the member for Hamilton Centre to withdraw that statement or I will have no choice but to name her.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I cannot and I will not withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: I have no choice. Sergeant at Arms, I must name the member for Hamilton Centre.

Ms. Copps was escorted from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms.

Interjections.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

The Acting Speaker: If it is not a point of order, the chair is not prepared to listen. You have one sentence to introduce your point of order.

Mr. Martel: You might have done that with your own member. Or did you forget that? You let her read a whole statement. Do not play games.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I was simply going to say I do not understand why the Liberal caucus is so sensitive about this. Could the Speaker verify whether this incident was more serious than when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) went to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and spoke to him privately after the Suncor affair? He revealed the conversation when it was supposed to be private.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment with respect to the proceedings yesterday in the district court in Buffalo on the hearing on the S area dump.

Is the minister aware now that his agents, his lawyer and experts, completely botched that case? They were seen as being poorly prepared and putting forward a position that did not conform with his own in this House. Indeed, the judge had to adjourn the case early to allow the minister's representatives to fully inform themselves of the facts.

What is the minister going to do to rectify the damage done yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government was stated very clearly in the statement I made to this House with respect to what we expected our lawyers in Washington would do in undertaking the representations on the S area site. The points the member is referring to, I believe, emanated from a letter that was received from Pollution Probe, which indicated they were not satisfied with the representations we had made up until that time. That was the first day of the case.

The case has not been completed yet and my understanding is the matter was handled extremely well today. I cannot speak for yesterday, but we are monitoring it on a regular basis and I have no reason whatsoever to intervene at this point in any direct or indirect fashion with our lawyers in this matter. I am satisfied and confident they will put forward the position of the province in a most adequate and acceptable fashion.

The case is not concluded or completed yet, so I think it is very presumptuous for any organization to be making statements about the capacity or the ability of our representatives within an hour or two hours after the case actually got under way. I just do not think that is fair, equitable or reasonable.

Mr. Peterson: It is not just one source; it is many sources who sat in that hearing yesterday and were embarrassed for the minister and his ministry because they blew the case.

Yesterday, Mr. Sunderland, his lawyer, and a Ministry of the Environment expert, Dr. MacKay, expressed their feeling that the containment program offered in that situation was adequate -- in other words, supporting the Hooker position -- as opposed to the minister's words in this House, and I quote back to him: "We do not accept that containment for several decades, possibly even hundreds of years, provides adequate protection for the very important Niagara River. We shall, therefore, request physical removal of the S area contaminants."

How can the minister put forward one position in this House not 20 days ago, on April 10, and then have his agents, his representatives, his spokesmen, put forward a different position in that court yesterday? How can he talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: We are not talking out of both sides of our mouths at all on this. The matter in question here with respect to the position this government took some few days ago in connection with the S area site is totally consistent; we have not changed our position.

We have requested that the site be excavated and that the contaminated material be removed. There is no difference of opinion between the government, my ministry and the lawyers who are representing us in the courts in New York state, and I want to make that abundantly clear. There is nothing inconsistent about that, and I can say nothing further on this matter to the Leader of the Opposition. Why does he not wait until he sees the results of our representations?

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the minister's counsel in New York are saying the containment as proposed by Hooker is satisfactory or not? What is the answer to that question? Is the minister saying it is unsatisfactory or is he saying it is satisfactory?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, our whole case is predicated on the view that the position the Occidental Chemical Corp. ,formerly known as Hooker Chemicals, has negotiated at the present time, which is to leave the contaminated soil in the site, is inadequate. Our position and the position of our lawyer -- and I have heard nothing that contradicts this up to this time -- has been that the soil must be removed in order to make sure this site is going to be completely safe under all circumstances. I hope I have clarified that.

Mr. Peterson: The minister in response to the earlier question said things were going well today but he was not sure about yesterday, implying he is informed of what is going on today but not of what went on yesterday.

How does the minister explain the fact that I just got a note this moment that the case was closed this morning early because the Minister of the Environment's expert witness, Dr. Geesach, was not prepared? How can he put forward a case in the court when his experts and his counsel are not prepared?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the press release a number of those statements came from was a letter sent to my office. I thought the letter was relatively confidential, but I understand it was given wide release immediately following that, before I had an opportunity to respond. The comments in that release were made within hours after the court actually went into session and the representations actually started on the part of our legal firm.

I think it is totally improper for the Leader of the Opposition to be interfering at this time in a process that is barely under way. I have every confidence that we are handling this thing in a most appropriate fashion. The position of my ministry with respect to the removal of that contaminated soil has not changed. Additional submissions will be made later this month. The matter has not wound down or been completed as of today.

Further discussions are to he held with respect to this matter. Further briefs will be presented. I think our case will be made in a most adequate fashion. I have every confidence that will be the case.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson). I just caught a fleeting glimpse of her sneaking around the back. Is she there?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Does the honourable member wish to stand down his question until the minister returns?

Mr. Peterson: Perhaps she is within hearing. I am not sure whether she is behind -- did she come in? I cannot see her.

The Acting Speaker: Does the member wish to stand it down until the minister returns?

Mr. Peterson: I will stand down the question until she returns. I assume she is coming back. Her papers are still there.

EARLY RETIREMENT

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Premier. I know the camera is not on him, but I wonder if I could have his attention. I know there are no cameras going, but I wonder if the Premier would mind paying some attention to the question.

The Premier may be aware that Canadian General Electric announced yet another plant closure in Toronto yesterday affecting nearly 300 workers. I wonder whether he would explain the contradiction between two recent statements made by members of his government. Just a few weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) a question with respect to early retirement and the adjustment benefits that were going to be paid to workers who had been affected by these tremendous changes. I am referring particularly to the problem of older workers.

Quoting from Hansard of March 27, the Minister of Labour said, "While perhaps there has been no public response to the problem, there has been a great deal of study, concern and proposals put forward and it has been discussed at a very high level in this government."

I wonder whether the Premier can square that statement with one made just the other day by a government spokesman who responded to a number of concerns expressed about older workers at a press conference. I am quoting from the Globe and Mail of Tuesday: "...a government spokesman acknowledged yesterday that a recent pension reform policy paper released by Mr. Grossman on April 18 does not address issues of concern to older laid-off workers, 'These are relatively new issues, so we have not looked at them,' said John Ilkiw, a senior budget adviser in the government's pension policy unit."

Is anything going on for older workers or not? The Minister of Labour says there is and Mr. Ilkiw says there is not. Which is it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is yes.

Mr. Rae: The Premier can laugh and be cute and clever. He can try to do all those things and perhaps at times he will even succeed. Earlier this week, the Premier said he was sympathetic to the problems of older workers who have been devastated by the changes going through the province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Question.

Mr. Rae: If the Premier is sympathetic, exactly what is the government doing? Why was there nothing in the recent paper by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) on the question of some assistance to the workers who have been affected by these changes? There was not a word, not a peep about the need for earlier retirement in 1984.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect to the member, he needs a new set of bifocals or something. First, I was not laughing. Second, I answered his question very concisely. The member asked whether the Ministry of Labour was looking into this question and I answered yes.

Mr. Rae: That was not the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was the question.

Mr. Rae: It was not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier give us some assurance that this whole matter of permanent layoffs and early retirement for older workers will be dealt with in the Treasurer's budget on May 15?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any assurance as to what the budget will contain on any issue; it is confidential.

Mr. Rae: The recent annual report of Canadian General Electric showed that on the appliance side, which is where these workers are working today, there was an increase in profit from $38 million in 1982 to approximately $52 million in 1983.

There is a very real concern in the community at large that companies are making profits at the same time as they are rationalizing and that the workers themselves are getting nailed time and time again in community after community because there has been no major redistribution towards the workers who are taking the brunt of all this change.

How does the Premier square the statement by Mr. Ilkiw that nothing is being done because it is a new problem with the statement by the Minister of Labour that there have been discussions at the highest level? Have there been discussions at the highest level, and what is being done for these workers who are being affected by these changes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker. I answered that question right at the outset. Yes, there are discussions.

Mr. Rae: The government is so out of touch, it is really going to start to pay for it.

The Acting Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: It is so out of touch with what is going on out there.

Mr. Foulds: And so damned complacent too.

Mr. Rae: It is going to suffer for it one day; I do not know when, but it really is.

The Acting Speaker: Question.

DAY CARE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Deputy Premier concerning daycare.

At a time when there are literally tens of thousands of men and women whose children are in need of adequate day care because they are in the work force, how can the Deputy Premier justify the fact that the 1983-84 projected budget for full- and part-time day care for all ages is only $4 a week per child whose mother is working, even if all the funding went for children under six instead of all ages? How does he feet about the adequacy of that funding for day care?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of child care is a very high priority item. Certainly I wanted to mention that to the honourable member. There were references made to it in the speech from the throne and we will be proceeding. In fact, I am just back now from a meeting with the federal minister responsible for the status of women where that was on our agenda this morning as well.

Mr. Rae: I would like to quote from the report that the Deputy Premier's colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) tabled just today. On page 17, speaking very directly about the question of daycare, he said:

"A lack of baby-sitting facilities and temporary child care hampers farm women at peak periods of operation. There is a need for some type of temporary help at these times. Women complain that they were unable to accompany their husbands to farm meetings or participate in OMAF day or evening programs and short courses because of a lack of baby-sitters, either at home or at the event."

There are other statements in there about the complete inadequacy of day care programs in many communities across the province.

How does the Deputy Premier feel about that kind of statement in the report, that condemnation of the inadequacy of the government's programs with respect to day care? What is he going to do about it to see that we have day care that is affordable, accessible and genuinely there for very young children and older children, kids today who are being left and neglected by a government that should be doing something for these kids and the parents who need to work to provide for their children?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I repeat, I attach great importance to this whole question of child care. It is a very important matter to continue to address so as to give some substance to the whole concept of equality of access to the work place. There is no doubt it is seen by many people, including the lady who was the author of this report, as a shared concern.

2:50 p.m.

I remind the member that the quality and the availability of day care are being addressed now in so far as the statement in the speech from the throne is concerned and we will have more to say about this in due course.

As the member knows, the Coalition for Better Day Care will be here on Monday making some presentations to various members of the Legislature. I have already made arrangements, along with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and other of my colleagues of the government, to meet with the leadership of the coalition on Monday.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I hope that when the Deputy Premier meets with the coalition on Monday he is prepared to offer them more than just a number of sweet words and expressions of concern.

Given the fact that this government instituted in the last provincial budget something called the social services maintenance tax, which raised almost $300 million last year and which will raise double that this year, is the Deputy Premier prepared, along with his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, to recommend to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and to the cabinet that some of this money be used to provide immediate subsidized day care spaces? This is such a crying need throughout Ontario, but particularly in Metropolitan Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, our approach will be an overall approach. I certainly shared some observations this morning at a consultation in Ottawa after my meeting with the federal minister, when I invited those who are interested in this whole situation, this whole service area, to start to consider new partnerships in so far as the provision of child care is concerned, arrangements in which we would involve the community.

I recognize it as a very high priority item with respect to the discharge of my particular responsibilities. We have already recognized this and we have said so in the speech from the throne. I think the contribution of many people with respect to the review that is currently going on will be valuable as we determine new directions in this very important area.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I will presume in my question that the minister is aware of events in the Metropolitan Toronto area, an area that has been presumed to be well served by day care in comparison with the remarks made by my leader on rural access today care.

I am presuming he is aware that there is now some discussion at the Metropolitan Toronto level of actually tightening up the whole question of who is eligible for subsidized day care because of the impossibility of getting enough spaces for all the people who are now eligible for subsidized day care under Canada assistance plan definitions. In fact, only the poorest of the poor will be eligible for subsidized day care, and the people the minister is talking about who are going out to work will not have access to day care.

Will the minister tell me specifically, and not in the generalities he has talked about, what he intends to do about that very fact? Instead of more people getting subsidies, more people getting access, in places such as Toronto as well as in many other areas they will be restricting the access. What does he intend to do specifically about that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made the point quite clearly in response to the main question that, since assuming these particular responsibilities, I have had meetings with a number of individuals and organizations. I recognize the overall importance of the provision of this service, and I am aware of the information the member for Scarborough West has shared with me. After we have completed the meetings that are currently under way and the review referred to in the speech from the throne, I will be prepared to share further statements with respect to developments.

SCIENCE EDUCATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister is back here, and I apologize if I implied that she sneaked out. I am delighted to see her walk back.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are forgiven.

Mr. Peterson: I am quite aware of that, and I appreciate it. I saw her there.

The minister is no doubt aware of the document of her colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) called Economic Transformation: Technological Innovation and Diffusion in Ontario, which deals with the structural changes in our economy and the need for people qualified with technological and scientific skills to make those economic transformations and the new thrusts we must put into that area.

She is no doubt aware as well of the Science Council of Canada report, which was severely critical of the scientific training that our young people are receiving not only in this province but across the rest of the country as well.

Why is her ministry so out of sync with her colleague the Treasurer and with other experts who see these great changes sweeping through our society and who recognize that we will need scientifically trained people to manage them?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are out of sync at all. We have been leading the direction. It was the Ontario Ministry of Education and its minister that persuaded other ministers of education to participate in a critical examination of science education across Canada more than five years ago.

We were informed at the time that this excellent study would be carried out if we co-operated and that within two years we would have the results of the study of the Science Council of Canada. I felt this was absolutely perfect. We were in the process of redesigning the secondary school science program and we knew we would be doing so at about that time.

We waited patiently. I received numerous apologetic missives from the honourable member's predecessor, Dr. Smith, outlining his grave concern that it took so much time to get this study done. It took so much time that we had to begin redesigning the science program without the assistance of the Science Council of Canada. It is absolutely astonishing that we have done exactly the kinds of things the science council is directing without its telling us.

As a result of the increased number of mandatory credits, we are persuading young people to participate in science education at the secondary level -- for all students. Surely that is the appropriate first step towards finding the kinds of directions those marvellous people at the science council tell us are necessary. That is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Peterson: I assume the minister's position is that it is a federal responsibility for education rather than her own and that she is delegating it to someone else to show leadership.

Why is the minister decades out of it? Is she aware of the Ontario Schools Intermediate and Senior Divisions report published in 1984, this year, that refers to the curriculum guidelines of her ministry used in the schools of Ontario today? I will refresh her memory. Biology guidelines were created in 1963, 21 years old; biology, grade 13, created in 1969, 15 years old; chemistry, 1965, 19 years old; chemistry, 1966, 15 years old; geology, 1963, 21 years old; physics, 1966, 18 years old; science, intermediate division, 1978, six years old.

The minister is trying to teach with knowledge of 20 years ago. That is her leadership. She is the one who is failing in her leadership. Why has she not taken the responsibility to show the leadership in this most critical area?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I just told the member precisely why we had not done it before. We were awaiting the results of the study of the Science Council of Canada. When they did not do it --

Mr. Peterson: We have been waiting for 20 years -- for two decades.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have only been the minister since 1978, so the member cannot lay that one on me.

We have been trying since that time to provide the leadership in science education. We did not get the assistance from the science council that we thought we were going to get and we proceeded with our own review. It is in process now. That is precisely what I was trying to tell the member, if he did not understand. I will be delighted to invoke the assistance of some scientist to improve his hearing.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, in conversations with those who are on the front line in the delivery of the service in education, the teachers, I am told they have found these outdated guidelines to be of very little use to them. They have had to invoke their own experimental curriculum guidelines and on an ad hoc basis so they could have an updated curriculum.

In view of the fact that the minister should not have to rely on the federal authority, the municipal authority or anybody else, what took her ministry so long to take its own initiative to develop these guidelines? They have been needed for years because people have been talking about the need for great advances in science and technology. She should not blame someone else. Where was the minister's leadership?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question. I am sorry the honourable member did not understand my answer, but I thought it was very clear.

3 p.m.

PURCHASE OF OPP BOATS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General on the boat purchasing policy of his ministry.

In his replies to the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) on Monday and Tuesday, he indicated to the House that the longer warranty on the boat was one of the reasons Grew was favoured over Mason.

Is he aware the bid set or the tender form did not even specify a minimum warranty for the boats? If that is the case, would he indicate to us now whether he intends to withdraw the arrangements he has made with the other company?

Mr. Shymko: I think the ship is sinking.

Mr. Boudria: I think it has sunk already.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on the matter the honourable member has asked about, there are and have been warranties on boats that are purchased. On the original boats supplied by the company the member has mentioned, the warranty was for one year. During that time, as the member for Lanark has said, a boat was returned to obtain a replacement under that warranty.

Mr. Bradley: At their cost.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I hear the member for St. Catharines saying "at their cost." Is that not what a warranty is? If I get a warranty, I would expect it would be at their cost. I want the member to understand the question and the answer.

The warranty on the Grew boat is for two years. There was a brochure sent by Mason that said "a five-year limited warranty." Having had some experience with those boats before and that experience not being satisfactory because it had to claim on the warranty, the purchasing department of the Ministry of the Solicitor General inquired into the terms of the warranty in the brochure. That warranty came back, and I think this is understandable, with one year on commercial applications. The boat was being purchased for a commercial application. The brochure was for recreational applications.

As one boat had a one-year warranty and the other a two-year warranty, it is understandable, when those specifications were asked about, that one is superior to the other -- one year versus two years.

Mr. Boudria: The minister will know there was no such specification for minimum warranty. It was not in there.

The minister also indicated the distance to pick up the boat was one factor they looked at, given that the tender form asked for f.o.b. at source. In other words, the price was at the factory gate. Is it now the policy of his government that the closer a firm is to Toronto, the greater the chance of selling to the government? Is that the way the government is going to operate from now on?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I would just clarify that so the member understands that feature. The purchasing department received the documentation on the tender that set out certain features. The purchasing department then received a recommendation from the Ontario Provincial Police transport branch. It was recommending the second lowest tender, which was $319 over the lowest tender.

The purchasing department in its wisdom was naturally questioning why the second lowest tender was being accepted. When the reply came back, and there were numerous reasons the OPP was recommending the second lowest tender, one of those other features happened to be that there would have to be inspections made, the boat would have to be looked at from time to time and it would have to be delivered.

Bear in mind the OPP had already had to take back one boat to this particular boat company. They had to take all the equipment off it and send it back to be replaced, so that is another consideration in the long-term maintenance experience with this boat company.

They had experiences with which they were not satisfied as compared to the Grew company where they had not had the same experiences, had been satisfied with their product and had a product --

Mr. Boudria: They gave them a new boat.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The member says they gave them a new boat. This was under the warranty. They were dissatisfied with the product, so they got a new boat. After showing them the product was not satisfactory, after saying they wanted a replacement of the product because it was not satisfactory, I think it was an obligation. It was not because of generosity, as I heard the member for Lanark say and as the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) seems to be indicating, but because legally they had to do it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, could the minister assure the people in Ottawa and throughout eastern Ontario that in the future there will be no further tariffs imposed by the Ontario government on the shipment of boats or other commodities from eastern Ontario to the rest of the Ontario market?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there is no discriminatory policy now and there will not be. There is not a tariff, as the member says. If he understood it fully, he would know it was one of those facts, but an insignificant fact, on the boat purchase.

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister can clear up the misunderstanding and what I feel is a real injustice to Mr. Mason. When we talk about his boat and the problems they had with his boat, I do not know if people know the real reasons. Mr. Mason just telephoned my office to say some of the press he is getting is not very complimentary to his boat. The OPP sent the boat back due to cosmetic conditions. When they use the word "cracks" --

The Acting Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary question?

Mr. Wiseman: Yes. Would the minister correct any injustice done to Mr. Mason by saying there were cosmetic conditions for sending back the boat and not cracks, so it will not hurt Mr. Mason's business any further than it has?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, to answer the honourable member's reply and question, I did not raise the issue of problems with the boat. He raised the issue of problems with the boat. He is the member --

Mr. Martel: That is a low blow.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is all Doug's fault.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would ask the members --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is a pretty sight. This is a fight going on here.

The Acting Speaker: We have used this sword once today.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the member for Lanark asked why one bid was accepted over the other. I answered the question about those bids in very general terms. Many of those terms are the features which are looked at when buying a boat. We are looking at a difference of $319. I think the purchasing department and the OPP looked at those two boats and assessed them. There is no reason in any of our tenders that the lowest tender always has to be accepted. There is always a provision that one looks at the best value for the dollar.

In this particular situation, the member for Lanark mentioned the faults that were in the boat and said they were insignificant faults as far as he and the supplier were concerned, and the boat was returned.

The OPP transport branch has 102 boats. They go out in all kinds of weather and in all kinds of water.

I want to read to the members the material on this particular boat, which the member has seen. He has seen my entire file on this. Here is the assessment this individual made to the OPP when he looked at the two boats. It says: "We now have three 22-foot Mason boats in our fleet that are equipped with these sliding-type hatches that continuously leak, causing wetness to the forward storage spaces and contents."

3:10 p.m.

Then we go on further in this report by the OPP: "Grew boats are more durable, have excellent quality control and workmanship, are far superior to the 22-foot Mason boat and meet our specifications in every respect."

On one more item --

The Acting Speaker: I do want the minister to be brief.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Further, it says: "In May 1982 we purchased a 22-foot Mason from Mason boat works. It was posted to our Midland detachment and, after only a short period, it started to show spider cracks in the gelcoat on both sides of the hull. This was immediately reported to Mr. Leon Mason and he stated that it was only cosmetic" -- the writer then says ''I disagree" -- "but that they could repair it at the end of the 1982 boating season."

These stress cracks grew more pronounced and the launch had to be replaced on warranty as it was within a year of purchase.

Here is a further reason the one boat was selected over the other, independent of where it was manufactured. I noted the 22-foot Mason launch at the 1984 Toronto boat show --

The Acting Speaker: The minister has gone into enough depth.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I just want to help the member who is helping his constituent.

HOSPITAL ADMITTANCE DELAYS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will know of the ongoing problem we have raised in this Legislature of overcrowding of hospitals. We recently completed a study of our survey of hospitals in the Niagara Peninsula and found, of the six hospitals we visited, there are 160 active treatment beds occupied by individuals waiting for long-term care. Four of the six hospitals are using hallways as holding areas for individuals needing admission to acute care beds, and some people are having to wait for between two and five days to get regular beds in the hospitals. Much of the elective surgery is being cancelled.

Although this problem is not specific to the Niagara Peninsula. I would like to ask what steps the minister is prepared to take to solve the problems in the peninsula. He must be well aware of them by now.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member realizes the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) keeps me very well informed on the situation in the Niagara Peninsula.

I am aware of the concerns that have been raised. I met with the board of one of the hospitals in that area fairly recently, and I have a meeting scheduled a little later this month with representatives of the district health council, which has presented me with a report with recommendations relating to that specific issue. Following that meeting, I hope I will be in a position to determine the most appropriate course of action.

It would be unfortunate if the impression were left that the situation the member describes is either constant or general across the province. Situations do arise in some communities from time to time in which a patient may have to wait for admission in an emergency department for a period of time. That does not necessarily mean there is a general shortage of beds. In some instances, it is a problem of bed allocations within the institution. To illustrate, on some three different occasions when the matter of people waiting in hospital corridors, etc., was raised in Metropolitan Toronto, we did instantaneous surveys that revealed there were 1,000 empty beds at those times.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the minister trying to diminish a very real problem that exists in the Niagara region. I wonder if he is aware that, according to the information that was given to my leader and myself just last week by the executive director, the average waiting time to get into a chronic care bed in the Welland County General Hospital is 132 days. It is 234 days to get into an extended care bed. Almost every night people are kept in the emergency department -- not occasionally, almost every night -- because no active treatment beds are available. Sometimes there are as many as 14 patients overnight in the emergency department, where there is only one bathroom and one sink for washing both utensils and humans and no privacy there at all.

Does the minister not agree this kind of health service is well below the acceptable level? Does this not convince him that the 30 beds which are now closed down in the Welland County General Hospital ought to be put back in service immediately?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the concerns at the Welland County General Hospital. In fact, my parliamentary assistant met with members of the board and administration of that hospital within, I believe, the last two or three weeks and has reported to me on that meeting.

Mr. Rae: Nothing has happened.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not trying to minimize the problem. I am just trying to put it in a more balanced perspective than are those who are trying to exaggerate it. I recognize there is a problem at that hospital because of the distribution of long-term care beds in the peninsula. It is not necessarily simply a matter of shortages as much as it is of distribution or maldistribution of beds that have been put in place over the years. Within the last year we have approved additional long-term care beds that are not yet constructed and in operation, although they have been approved.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the proposals that have been made by the St. Catharines General Hospital, which I believe have subsequently been approved by the district health council, that would assist measurably in overcoming some of the health care problems in the peninsula? Is he prepared to give an undertaking to assist in alleviating the problems that exist by approving those proposals, which I think would benefit immensely the chronic care situation as well as emergency care at the hospital?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say I am familiar in detail with those specific proposals. If they are contained in the district health council's report, I will be reviewing it between now and my meeting with the council later this month. If they are not, I am sure the district health council will raise them with me at the time of that meeting.

HATE LITERATURE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), I will direct my question to the Solicitor General.

The minister is well aware of the concerns that have been expressed by members of all parties in this House about the problem of hate literature. Given that concern, I draw the minister's attention to an advertisement for three books by Avro Manhattan, which appeared in the book supplement of the Globe and Mail on April 21, 1984. I have sent a copy of this advertisement to the minister.

For the information of the members, the three books advertised are entitled, Vietnam...Why Did We Go?, The Vatican Moscow Washington Alliance, and The Vatican Billions.

I gather from the advertising blurbs that the central theme of all these books is that the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church are involved in some gigantic conspiracy to attain world domination.

In one case it is insinuated that the Vatican was behind the assassinations of Presidents Diem and Kennedy. In another it claims, "The Roman Catholic institution is no Christian church!" The third promises to demonstrate "how the Popes stole the wealth of the world through the centuries," and "why the papacy claims ownership of the Americas."

3:20 p.m.

The advertisements alone strike me as being objectionable and inflammatory. Would the minister tell the House if his ministry or the Ministry of the Attorney General has received any complaints from the public about these books? If not, will the minister undertake to raise this matter with his colleague the Attorney General, with the aim of having this matter reviewed by the appropriate officials in the Ministry of the Attorney General?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for the question. These are not on my reading list, nor are they, I guess, on the Book of the Month Club list.

The Attorney General is personally very concerned about this matter. The two of us have been putting together a group of individuals through the Ontario Provincial Police who will be spending their time exclusively on the terminology referred to generically as hate literature. I will bring this to their attention and to that of the people in the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, before these people go riding off in all directions on their white horses, would the Solicitor General and his colleague table in this Legislature just exactly what definition they have arrived at as to what constitutes hate literature? Perhaps we could all have a look. We might see that perhaps there are some things on our shelves that should be burned.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if there is any definition, it will be that contained in any of the statutes of the jurisdiction of the day. The investigators will not go into areas other than those they think are within the definition.

ADMISSIONS TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something relating to a statement of the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), who I think is lurking somewhere in the environs. On April 27, he charged that a second-year student in the forestry and wildlife program at the Sault College of Applied Arts and Technology was placed on a waiting list to enter the third year of the same program. He further charged that 70 students were qualified to enter this third year but only 15 places were available. I think the member wanted to make the point that it was the government's fault for not making it possible for all these students to complete their course of study.

As with the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), the member for London North has not got his facts completely straight. My ministry has been in contact with the registrar of the college --

Mr. Van Horne: Everybody is wrong except the minister, who is always right.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, no. The registrar of the college provided me with the factual information. It was not my information; it is the college's information.

I have been informed that the student in question is graduating from the second year of the forestry technician program and is applying to the fish and wildlife technology program. The fish and wildlife technology program is a one-year program having graduation from the forestry technician program or a related natural resource program as a prerequisite for entrance.

This year there are 38 graduates from the forestry technician program, all of whom have applied to the fish and wildlife program, which has a capacity of 15 places. Since all 38 graduates met all the criteria for admission to this further program -- not the completion of the same program -- random selection was used for admission as the last resort.

It is obvious this program is popular for the students now enrolled at Sault College because only those 38 students applied to take the fish and wildlife program at Sault. No other students from any of the other 21 colleges have made applications there. Therefore the number of applicants was 38, not 70. Furthermore, the fish and wildlife program is also offered at Sir Sandford Fleming College in Peterborough, but not a single one of those 38 graduates of the Sault College program has applied to Sir Sandford Fleming.

As I have said repeatedly in this House in the past, the random selection process is used only as a last resort when all criteria for admission have been met and all the students are equally qualified. Individuals have complained about its use, but to this point the college community as a whole has not produced a better way of choosing candidates for a limited enrolment program.

I would remind all members that one of the main reasons for limited enrolment programs is in the first instance the availability of employment after graduation. If any member has interesting suggestions about alternatives to that last-resort activity, I will be very pleased to transmit them to the task force I appointed at the end of last year to look at means of admission to college programs. That task force is functioning at present.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In response to the comments of the minister that either I did not have my facts straight or I said something incorrect, the information provided to me and to my office by the student concerned, Brenda Gallagher from London, Ontario, who is taking that course in Sault Ste. Marie, was that the two-year forestry and wildlife program is a prerequisite for the wildlife and fishery program.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, I said that.

Mr. Van Horne: If that is the case, why does the minister make it sound as if it does not matter? That is what the response she gave to this House suggests.

This student got the highest marks in the entire class. In spite of that and in spite of this being a prerequisite, she was still subject to the random selection. It does not make sense. The student did not understand it. If that is the information the minister has, then perhaps she and I should go to the administration at that college and see that they let the students know what the heck is going on, because somebody goofed.

TESTING OF BACKUP BATTERIES

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy regarding batteries. That might not sound like a very important topic, but the batteries that are the standby power in a nuclear plant perform a very important service. If there is a power failure, they provide the power source in the interim for the functions of many important parts of the plant in a shutdown.

On April 9, I asked the minister about the state of readiness of the class 1 emergency power supply batteries at the Bruce nuclear station. I reported then that Ontario Hydro did not give the batteries a full-load test five years after installation as required, and that certain maintenance procedures to ensure the batteries were in peak operation were not followed. I have since been in contact with Hydro and learned that certain batteries, which did not meet the test requirements and which could be defective, were shifted around inside Bruce instead of being replaced.

Instead of being an apologist for Ontario Hydro, would the minister look into the matter and come back with an adequate answer?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kerrio: We are headed in the right direction. Will the minister take with him the information I will now provide?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I will.

Mr. Kerrio: I am not finished. The minister is not getting off that easily. I am sure he will be interested in this. Hydro may not have been informing him of the full problem here, and that is the question I want to raise.

Hydro knows that the NAX 1500 batteries in the common unit are good and the EKR 1200s in unit 1 are fine. The batteries that failed to meet the standard, according to Hydro, were shifted to the main battery banks in unit 2. Because of the suggestion there may be batteries in that bank which will not provide the full voltage and necessary amperage to perform the function they are placed there for, that unit needs to be tested as soon as possible.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Was there a question in that supplementary? If the question was whether I will take the information provided to me by the member, the answer is yes.

3:30 p.m.

BAIL VERIFICATION

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary for Justice, and relates to the bail verification program. The provincial secretary will recall I addressed questions on this matter to him and his colleague the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) in the dying days of the last session in mid-December.

Then on February 10 the minister stated, "While it is anticipated that bail verification and supervision services will continue after September 1, an extensive review of existing programs will be undertaken."

In the minister's letter of March 6, 1984, to the directors of the various bail verification programs, he stated there were unwarranted fears, that there would be no change and that both the program content and funding arrangements would remain the same, and be put in the date of September 1.

On March 19, his colleague the Minister of Correctional Services advised each of the services that there would be no commitment to fund beyond the end of June 1984, and that the corrections funding would be terminated.

Because of the problems faced by these bail verification programs with respect to carrying out their programs, taking into account that the average period of bail supervision is something over four months, will the minister make a clear and concise statement as to his intention with respect to the funding of these programs to the end of June and to September 1, and the funding commitment after September 1?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate clearly that the funding for the bail verification programs across the province will continue beyond the end of June. Until the end of June they will be carried by the Ministry of Correctional Services, and beyond the end of June they will be carried by another ministry. That will take us up to September 1. I give the guarantee up to September 1.

Beyond September 1, we are not sure of the precise shape the bail verification program will take. At the moment we have an interministerial committee assessing that, a committee made up of the ministries involved in the justice field and other ministries to determine the best shape of the bail verification program.

It is a program commenced at the time I was the Minister of Correctional Services, and there have been some evolutionary changes in the process in the interim. We want to make sure it is serving the public in the best possible way and is providing the maximum benefit for the dollars that are spent. That was precisely the reason the Minister of Correctional Services took the approach he did in December.

I can say the funding is secure until September 1. I expect very strongly that some shape of the bail verification program will continue beyond September. However, we do not and will not know the precise shape until the interministerial committee has reported to us.

Mr. Renwick: As I said, on February 10 the minister stated "it is anticipated that bail verification and supervision services will continue after September 1," and he referred to the extensive review and study. Has there been any consultation or does he intend to consult in any way with one or more of the 12 bail verification programs with respect to the refashioning or reshaping of those programs? Does he in any way, shape or form believe those bail verification programs will exist with their present staff and case loads, and the present important function they are serving in the community, beyond September 1?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The answer to the first question is no, and to the second question, yes. I will get to the third one in a moment.

In essence, what we are saying is consultation has not as yet occurred with the interministerial committee, which at the moment is basically consulting within the various ministries on the needs of a number of ministries. However, in due course there will be adequate consultation with a number, and perhaps all, of the bail verification units across the province.

As to the continuance beyond September 1, I am not prepared to give a commitment about the staffing and case load levels because that would presume I know exactly the shape it will take. The ministers in the justice field at the moment cannot tell the member that, so we must delay that part. However, I think it is fair to say that something will continue beyond September 1. It is just the shape of it we are not entirely sure of at the moment.

PETITIONS

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned electors of Julian Reed, appeal to the Legislature to provide form and substance in law for the basic human right of parents in Ontario to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

"The present education policy provides no guarantees for the existence of independent schools that are one of the concrete expressions of this basic parental right. Furthermore, in a democratic and multicultural society parents should have the right to send their children to schools of their choice without a financial penalty.

"We ask for your help in reducing the unfair burden of what, in effect, is double taxation. We seek a just public education policy that supports all schools deemed to be operating in the public interest."

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition as follows:

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

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

"We, the undersigned electors of the ridings of Kitchener-Wilmot, Waterloo North and Kitchener, appeal to the Legislature to provide form and substance in law for the basic human right of parents in Ontario to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

"The present education policy provides no guarantees for the existence of independent schools that are one of the concrete expressions of this basic parental right. The supporters of these schools also face a form of financial hardship. The parents of independent schools, while contributing millions of dollars in education taxes, have had to bear the full cost of their own schools.

"This is unfair. We seek a just public education policy that supports all schools that provide future citizens a good education."

This is signed by 32 constituents in Kitchener-Wilmot, Waterloo North and Kitchener.

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I have the following petition:

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

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

'We, the undersigned electors and residents of Guelph and Wellington South, respectfully petition for your support to redress a serious injustice in our current education policy and practice.

"The facts are simple. In the last five years parents who send their children to independent schools have contributed $1 billion for education in Ontario without receiving a cent for the education of their own children. In fact, they have had to bear a double burden through fees and contributions for their own independent schools.

"Furthermore, in a democratic and multicultural society, parents should have the right to send their children to schools of choice without a financial penalty. This is recognized partially in the case of Catholic families with minor exceptions and fully in the case of Franco-Ontarians. It should apply equally to all."

It is signed by 188 constituents in support of independent schools in Wellington county.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 86 people from London North and surrounding ridings. It reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, urge that the unfair burden of double taxation be reduced for supporters of independent schools. These schools operate in the public interest. In a democratic multicultural society, choice in education should not endow some schools of choice with funding while denying the same rights to others."

I would add that the executive of the London Parental Christian School on Clarke Road in London presented this petition to me on behalf of those signing it.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 793 people:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly:

'We, the undersigned, urge the Legislative Assembly to support the private member's bills of Don Boudria, MPP, Prescott-Russell, to permit the sale of beer and Ontario wines in small independent grocery stores.

M. le Président, je voudrais présenter la pétition suivante:

"Pétition adressée au Lieutenant-gouverneur en Conseil et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous, soussignés, par la présente pétition demandons à l'Assemblée législative et au gouvernement d'appuyer les projets de loi du député Don Boudria qui permettraient aux petites épiceries indépendantes de vendre de la bière et du vin ontarien." Elle est signée par 793 personnes, qui apporte le total au-delà de 4,000 personnes.

That makes a total of more than 4,000 people who have signed those petitions.

SCHOOL BUSING

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, if I may:

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

"We, the undersigned residents of Prescott-Russell, ratepayers of the Prescott and Russell County Board of Education, petition the Minister of Education to intervene on our behalf.

"A group of 10 families living east of the existing school boundaries dividing the Pleasant Corners Public School bus routes from those of the Plantagenet Public School were notified that the boundaries were going to be changed. Due to the increased enrolment of Pleasant Corners and the decrease in the enrolment in Plantagenet, it would be necessary to uproot our children and send them to Plantagenet school."

There is about another page of explanation, but I think the general thrust has been explained. This is signed by 53 residents of the constituency of Prescott-Russell.

3:40 p.m.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition, which 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:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action.''

It is signed by Charlotte Balmer of 55 Delwood Drive in Scarborough.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener;

Bill P17, An Act respecting the Oakville Young Men's Christian Association -- Young Women's Christian Association;

Bill Pr20, An Act to continue The Corporation of the Townships of Shackleton and Machin under the name of The Corporation of the Township of Fauquier-Strickland.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the Oakville Young Men's Christian Association -- Young Women's Christian Association.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment before we accept the recommendation for passage of the report. The report includes a recommendation with respect to Bill Pr3, the successor to Bill Pr13, which was originally designed as a response to the housing crisis in the city of Toronto and which was to give the city of Toronto the power to control demolitions through the control of the issuance of demolition permits.

I simply want to put the government and the government House leader on notice that when this bill is ordered for second reading, we are prepared to give it a speedy passage, but we also want to have the opportunity to debate the bill. Bill Pr3 as it emerged from the committee -- indeed, as it went into the committee -- has nothing at all to do with demolition control. It is simply a measure that will give the city of Toronto the power to delay demolition for up to 12 months, but there is no effective demolition control involved.

Although it is not normal to debate private bills on second reading -- most of them are routine municipal housekeeping bills -- this has enormous policy implications and we do want to debate it. I want to make it absolutely clear, however, that we have no intention of delaying the passage of Bill Pr3. Our debate will be short and swift and to the point.

We are told this bill is of such urgency that it had to be passed by 12:30 pm. today or there would be dire consequences. I want to put it on the record that we have had no indication from the government House leader with respect to the government's plans to order this bill for second reading or for third reading. If it is a matter of urgency and if there are dire consequences attendant on the passage of this bill, then it is up to the government to organize its business so that happens.

Because there have been allegations that the opposition is somehow trying to delay this bill, I want it clearly on the record that we have no intention of delaying this bill and that if it needs speedy passage, the opposition is not standing in the way of speedy passage. Indeed, the government is standing in the way of speedy passage, because it has given no indication when the bill will be ordered for second reading or when it will be ordered for third reading.

When we get to second reading debate we will have some short and pithy comments to make, and then we will be happy to see the bill proceed into law.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McLean from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Assembly be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Office of the Assembly, $32,779,600.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Leluk, first reading of Bill 54. An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend coverage under the Public Service Superannuation Act to part-time civil servants, seasonal workers and certain other employees in government-related jobs that are of an ongoing nature.

This bill implements the following statement contained in the throne speech: "To provide wider access to improved rights and benefits, the civil service will include employees who work on a regular part-time basis."

Ancillary to this purpose is an amendment to allow contributors to establish credit for past noncontinuous service. This will permit the buy-back of credits for past part-time or seasonal service.

The bill also includes some amendments that will bring the Public Service Superannuation Act more into line with other recent legislation.

Finally, a number of housekeeping items are also contained in the bill that are necessary for administrative purposes.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FREE TRADE

Mr. Stevenson, seconded by Mr. Gillies, moved resolution 15:

Recognizing that trade plays a vital role in Ontario's economy and that trade policies will be a key factor in determining our province's future, and given that over 70 percent of our trade is with the United States, this House urges federal-provincial co-operation and direct provincial participation in the recently initiated Canada-US discussions on sectoral free trade arrangements in order to examine the potential long-term benefits to Ontario of tree trade arrangements in selected industry sectors.

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): May I remind the member that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for windup.

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear from the outset that it is my intention only to highlight the issue of sectoral free trade, to draw attention to the fact that negotiations are currently going on and to draw attention to the fact that I believe very strongly Ontario should have a direct involvement in those negotiations.

I will not be taking a strong stand for or against sectoral free trade in any of the sectors that will be briefly discussed, mainly because I do not have the experience or the resources to do the significant investigation that would be required to make a firm pronouncement in any particular sector.

In the uncertainty of today, policymakers must grapple with two conflicting challenges. The first is the task of looking after present needs, of preserving the real gains we have made. The second is the need to keep the long-term considerations and future requirements, which are often ultimately more vital to the health of the economy than the immediate gain achieved by providing short-term relief.

We must remember these two forces are in continual play when we as decision-makers examine the economic challenges our country and our province face. To my mind, there are two very important challenges we must contend with today. First, we must maintain financial stability in the midst of international debt problems. Second, and what most concerns our interests, we must maintain and expand our trade opportunities in an environment increasingly hostile to a free international trading system.

We all know trade is vital to our national and provincial economies. More than two million Canadians, 20 per cent of our work force, are involved in producing goods for export. Proportionally, we are twice as involved in trade as the Japanese and two and a half times as much as the United States. Unfortunately, the international economic environment is much less hospitable to open trade than it once was.

Many Canadian companies are benefiting from the current economic recovery in the United States; however, the upturn in markets in Europe and Japan is still lagging. This uneven timing of worldwide recovery leads to trade imbalances. These, in turn, create a tendency in countries to advocate protectionist measures. In particular, unemployment in the industrialized countries has generated tremendous political pressure towards trade protectionism.

International rules are slowly being eroded. This could have a potentially devastating effect on Canadian exporters. Yet Canada, similarly to other nations, is preoccupied with protecting its domestic industries and work force. We can see that trade is a double-edged sword. One country can secure an advantage for itself through trade barriers only if the other countries do not follow suit.

Clearly, the problems we face are complex and we cannot expect to come up with all the solutions. What we can and must strive towards is a trade agenda for the 1980s in which we address important issues in such a way as to strengthen our system as a whole, not only domestically but also with respect to our external relations.

The federal government has recently reviewed its national trade policy and has suggested an added emphasis on the US market. In a discussion paper released last September, Ottawa proposed that Canada might benefit from a bilateral agreement with the United States. The idea is for free trade agreements to be implemented with the United States on a limited sectoral basis.

Ottawa's proposal was preceded by a Senate committee investigation into Canada's trading position. The Senate report was strongly in favour of open-ended free trade with the United States. The federal cabinet rejected the Senate report, which called for free trade, but endorsed more limited trade arrangements with the United States on a sector-by-sector basis. Sectoral free trade pacts would work along the lines of the 1965 auto pact by bringing free trade to certain selected sectors of the economy.

On February 17, 1984, Gerald Regan, the Minister of International Trade, and William Brock, the US trade representative, met in Washington. They agreed to establish a bilateral study group that would report on the prospects of liberalizing trade in selected areas.

Canada was originally interested in pursuing talks in the area of textiles, petrochemicals and transit vehicles. The United States, on the other hand, is interested in free trade in the areas of computer services, equipment and farm machinery.

The final areas of study agreed upon by both countries are agricultural equipment, computer and information services, mass transit vehicles and steel. It was Canada that requested the talks, and the United States agreed readily. Working groups from both sides are now investigating the implication of these areas and will report in May.

The federal government's interest in sectoral free trade rests on the hope that it may offer a promising avenue by which to expand the economic base of a number of Canadian industries, particularly textiles, urban transportation and petrochemicals. Sectoral arrangements might also be a way that Canada and the United States could meet the competition from Third World countries and slow the exodus of production facilities from North America.

The United States has expressed interest in sectoral free trade with Canada, apparently as a means of demonstrating to its other trading partners that progress towards trade liberalization is possible even in today's current protectionist environment.

The first round of negotiations in the sectoral free trade talks is reviewing the possibilities of free trade in the steel industry. The steel discussions were spurred on when the United States imposed tariffs and quotas against all imports of specialty steel. Ottawa reciprocated by imposing a surtax on some US stainless steel products.

During the talks, Canada and the United States will be discussing which steel products to include under the free trade arrangement, a timetable for eliminating tariffs, measures to break down nontariff barriers and safeguard positions.

The outcome of the steel deliberations will be the acid test of the possibility of future talks in other sectors.

The federal proposals to encourage sectoral free trade with the United States represent a major change in national trade policy. It is a change that could have tremendous impact on our province. I believe it is imperative for us as policymakers to be fully informed of current federal Canadian and US discussions. It is also crucial that our provincial leaders co-operate with the federal government and be actively involved in any eventual decisions concerning sectoral free trade arrangements.

Trade policy is increasingly dealing with issues that directly affect provincial development and involve areas of provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, I believe any successful federal strategy in this area has to be one that is co-ordinated with provincial policies. Only when the federal government begins to treat provinces as partners will we be able to realize the full range of opportunities existing in the marketplace.

A full explanation of sectoral free trade between Canada and the United States requires a detailed investigation of the interests, problems and concerns of each country, where and how those affect the bilateral relationship, and how this relationship influences each country's domestic as well as international situation. It also involves consultations and an exchange of views with provincial authorities and industry spokesmen.

4 p.m.

I hope today's resolution will be the first step in this consultation process. My aim is to provide my colleagues in the House with a general background of the new direction in federal trade policy. I would like to review the issues of free trade and sectoral free trade by talking first on the level of general principle, and then to open up for discussion the topic of how free trade might affect particular sectors of our economy and our province as a whole.

As well, I would like to look at the question of how bilateral agreement with the United States fits into multilateral trading agreements, and that includes the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The idea of sectoral free trade seems very attractive because of the possibilities of achieving lower costs, improved productivity and greater competitiveness in our economy. The economic argument for free trade in general is well known. It is to the advantage of nations to compete openly and to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they are efficient, and to import those goods and services in which they are relatively inefficient.

When we look back over the past years, it is obvious that the world has reaped tremendous overall benefits from an open trading system. The healthy effects have been abundant -- increased economic growth, more jobs and greater consumer choice of high quality goods at lower prices.

During the past years, world trade was the major engine for growth and expansion of world trade. It was aided by the reduction of tariff barriers that were created in the 1930s. What will result from these bilateral, Canada-United States, free trade negotiations? It is going to be a very delicate issue to say the least.

Traditionally, Canadian resistance to free trade with our neighbour to the south has been based on a fear of the loss of political and economic sovereignty. Other fears include loss of jobs and plant relocations. Just recently, in response to the federal proposals, a report by the federal Textile and Clothing Board warns of the negative consequences of free trade with the US in the textile industry. The board concedes that dropping tariffs between Canada amid the US could provide consumers with cheaper prices as well as extend new export opportunities.

On the other hand, the Canadian textile industry, currently employing 160,000 people, could be drastically reduced. The removal of trade restrictions could create the possibility of the occurrence of shutdowns in Canada and the relocation of production facilities to the southern US, where wages for workers are significantly lower. The board points out that capital costs and transportation costs are also much lower in the southern United States than in Canada. All these factors could result in the loss of jobs in Canada.

In analysing the pros and cons of sectoral free trade, we must also keep in mind the comments of Abraham Rotstein of the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy, who has stated, "Just as there's no free lunch, there's no free trade." In other words, in pursuing free trade agreements, we must ask ourselves what the US wants in return. Sectoral free trade arrangements could only work if conditions were established to the satisfaction of both countries, and that will be difficult to achieve. The problem is to come up with terms that are to the advantage of both countries and treat both countries equitably.

One problem in dealing with the US at present is the unpredictability of the American congressional system. Certainly, Canadians are very much aware of previous agreements that the administration has had to hack away from, such as changes in the auto pact, the fishing treaty, the Alaskan pipeline and so on.

Another issue to consider is what effect the agreement with the US might have on Canada's international options. Under article 24 of GATT, trade advantages negotiated bilaterally must also be made available to other partners. That could dilute any benefit accruing from a bilateral agreement.

Lastly, we must not forget that any agreements are primarily going to have the greatest effect on Quebec and Ontario, and that is why these provinces should be involved in discussions.

Certainly, these types of bilateral trading have been very successful in Austria and Germany, and there are some private sector people who have basically issued Canada a challenge to become the Austria of Europe.

Despite many of the negative effects, which I have already mentioned, that could be associated with bilateral free trade, there are a number of positive aspects, which I have also already mentioned, and a number of people who are very much in favour of free trade.

Sylvia Ostry, the new federal Deputy Minister of International Trade, firmly believes in free trade. She does not believe it would impinge on national sovereignty. She uses the existence of the European Economic Community and the commitment to nationalism of the individual European countries to make her point. Furthermore, she asserts that sectoral free trade talks do not even raise such implications. Limited sector-by-sector, free trade agreements would avoid the political problems raised by open-ended free trade while being consistent with a policy committed to trade liberalization.

I think we must remember the United States is our best market. Last year $58 billion of goods went from Canada to the Americans. We must also remember that by 1987, under GATT, 80 per cent of our trade with the United States will be duty free on goods going from Canada to the US, and 65 per cent of US goods coming back into Canada will be duty free. Many other goods will have less than a five per cent duty. So it is certain we are heading in that direction just through GATT, without any other special considerations.

I wish to save a bit of time for the end, to make a few comments. I want to leave it at the moment and say there are a great many practical considerations that must be taken into account. There are a number of other leading people in the economic area who are very much in favour of sectoral free trade, and I do not have time to quote any of their feelings at the present time.

I think it is safe to say my proposal would be to take a very cautious and conservative approach to the liberalization of bilateral trade agreements that we have with the United States or others we might develop. Certainly, as the motion says, I propose that Ontario have a very significant input into the discussions that are currently going on.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat at a loss as to why the honourable member would have introduced this topic at this time, but his opening comments at least partially explained it. If I recall correctly, he indicated he was not speaking either for or against the resolution.

Second, he reminded us there were negotiations under way right at the present time with respect to sectoral trade and free trade between Canada and the United States. Then he went on to indicate, "But Ontario must become part of those negotiations."

It is perhaps only the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) who can tell us the degree to which Ontario is involved, but I would be most surprised if Ontario was not involved very extensively in those discussions. That is the kind of information the member could very well have brought to our attention.

4:10 p.m.

I want to go on record very clearly as saying, as well, that I feel very uneasy about this particular debate and about this particular issue. I fully realize that Canada and Ontario are trading jurisdictions and they are going to become increasingly so.

Trade is something we simply have to come to grips with in our relationships with our trading partners. I have no quarrel with that at all, but I have rather grave reservations when we start talking about free trade between the lion and the mouse. Let us be very clear that is what we are talking about. The United States has a population of 250 million people and Canada has a population of 25 million. The ratio is 10 to one.

Trade history shows very clearly that when the lion takes on the mouse, the lion usually wins. Trade patterns between Canada and the United States through the years are probably as good as between any two jurisdictions; nevertheless, it is clearly shown the results are usually in favour of the United States. That is something we cannot forget.

The other point we have to be very careful of is that in this debate we are talking about sectoral free trade. We are defining four or five particular sectors: steel, mass transit vehicles, farm equipment, computer and processing programs and petrochemicals. Let us not deceive ourselves that the debate in the past, the debate underlying this one and the debate in the future has been, is and will be about total free trade. That is an issue we have to come to grips with as well.

My reading of the views on this issue, especially of the American commentators, both those who are very strongly pro-Canada and those who are not quite so strongly pro-Canada, has clearly indicated there is more to it than what is on the surface.

I will just read one paragraph of an editorial in the Toronto Star on April 16, 1984: "While the US government is going along with this narrow sectoral approach, its top trade spokesman, US trade representative William Brock, let slip at a Brookings Institution seminar in Washington last week" -- that is about two weeks ago -- "that he really wants a broader approach -- namely, Canada-US free trade."

I am not trying to find goblins where none exists. I am not trying to create a situation where we have to be unduly alarmed, but I do think we have to recognize that the chances of our getting solely a sectoral free trade agreement with the United States are not very good. What the United States really wants is total free trade, which in my judgement would be a disaster for this country, this province and our economy.

At the beginning of his comments, the honourable member said he was neither in favour of nor opposed to this process. At this time, I would have to go clearly on record as being opposed to it. I do not think it is in Canada's or Ontario's best interest. I am well aware that Ontario and Canada are trading jurisdictions. The member mentioned some of the statistics.

Only a few weeks ago we had another debate on trade in this Legislature. I reminded my colleagues at that time that Japan, which is known worldwide as a trading nation, exports only 12 per cent of its manufactured products, whereas we in Ontario and Canada export 33 per cent -- in other words, one third of everything we manufacture. For us, trade is an absolute essential. We could not survive economically without it. There is no sense in trying to deny that. We simply have to recognize, live with and operate within that context.

I would challenge the member just a little bit with respect to his comments about the dominance of our trade with the United States. There is no doubt that at the present time the United States is our major trading partner. It has been so for a long time and probably will be for the next few years.

But we have to recognize that many other countries in the world are coming up fast. I am referring to an editorial of May 1, only two days ago to be exact. These statistics were identified in this editorial. It noted that a careful examination of trade statistics over a longer time frame -- the last five years -- showed our trade with the United States was up 52 per cent, that is, in total volume. But these are the important ones: with Mexico over the same five-year period it was up 483 per cent; with Taiwan, 133 per cent; with South Korea, 118 per cent; with Hong Kong, 148 per cent, and with Brazil, 102 per cent.

In other words, the increase in our trade with all of those jurisdictions over the five-year period ending in 1983 was double or more than that with the United States. This is clearly not an indication that these countries are about to overtake the United States as our major trading partner, but it is a clear indication that we now have trade relationships with many other jurisdictions that are extensive and growing at a very fast pace and we must deal with them as well.

I mention only that it may be difficult economically and very awkward in our trade relationships for us to get into too many special relationships with the United States when we are expanding at such a rapid pace our trade relationships with many other jurisdictions.

As a matter of fact, I have mentioned in this Legislature and in committee with the Minister of Industry and Trade that it would appear that our long-term trade future is every bit as much with the Pacific countries as it is with the United States. The record seems to show that our trade with western Europe is on the decline, while our trade with the United States seems to be holding relatively stable, but our growth patterns are with such countries as Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. Those are where our future trade patterns are going to take us, and that is what we have to take into consideration.

In this country we have had some raging political debates under John A. Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier and Mackenzie King with respect to free trade with the United States. It is something we have to keep in mind. We forget our history at our own peril.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edighoffer): The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr. Sweeney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will continue this at some other time.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I am positively puzzled by the resolution before us. When I saw the wording of the resolution in Orders and Notices, I took it to mean the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) was in favour of free trade. Certainly, the language of the resolution, which had to do with the potential long-term benefits to Ontario of free trade arrangements, led one to that conclusion.

When he got up to speak, however, he said he had no stand either for or against free trade and no resources with which to examine fully those questions. Nevertheless, although the member is the private member for Durham-York, he is also the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman). I would have thought he had considerable access to the resources of the Treasury.

I have no hesitation in taking a stand against free trade. I think free trade, not between a lion and a moose but between an elephant and a mouse, cannot exist. There is no such thing as free trade, either general or sectoral. Sectoral free trade is just the thin edge of the wedge. If it comes to protecting jobs, then I am for protecting ours in this country. There is no use having a lower price for consumer goods if we do not have a population working so it has wages to pay for those goods at a so-called lower price.

I do not think this province needs to establish a trade agenda for the 1980s, as the member suggested. We are already halfway through the 1980s. What we need is an economic agenda for the 1980s and the 1990s. Those who argue that free trade in the European common market countries has worked and use that as a model for North America are wrong.

North America does not have the balance and the diversity of the European common market, so it is not a parallel situation at all. In the North American common market or North American continentalism, we have the giant of the United States bounded by Canada on the north and Mexico on the south. It is my opinion, when the Americans are willing to talk about free trade, they are simply looking to Canada and Mexico as extensions of their market.

We have seen a number of ideas sent up as trial balloons by this government, so-called quick fixes to the economy. A couple of weeks ago and again last week, we heard of one trial balloon and that is the export-led recovery. With the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, we had a major program of import replacement, a strategy for us to produce the staples we need in our economy. This government is moving from one quick fix to another, instead of devising a comprehensive program to develop a five-year program to put together the economic development we need in this province to create jobs and to provide markets for our industries. What we have is a free trade resolution.

For a while it seemed the Ontario government had learned a few basic economic lessons. We were beginning to use the term and the government was beginning to use the term "fair trade," as opposed to free trade. If members want a slogan, my party and I believe in fair trade with all nations, not merely free trade with one nation. Let us understand a few rudimentary facts. Canada is already the international boy scout of the free trade world, and the Minister for Industry and Trade is the troop leader of free trade in the international world. We allow more imported manufactured goods into Canada than any other comparable nation.

Most of our trade with the United States already is free trade. The Canadian Senate committee on Canada-US relations noted in volume 3 of its report that once the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade changes come into full effect in 1987, 65 per cent of US exports to Canada will be duty free and 91 per cent will come in at less than a five per cent duty. The Senate committee also noted that already many imports, including sophisticated machinery not made in Canada, enter duty free.

We should remember what Mr. Roger Hill of the provincial Ministry of Industry and Trade said when he appeared before the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment of this Legislature. He predicted the GATT reductions would lead to about 2,000 branch plants leaving Ontario. We are seeing that happen right now.

What we know is that the United States wants free trade with Canada. We know the United States wants free trade with Canada on its terms, and we know it wants Canada as an extension of its own market. What we have is a desire on the part of the United States to extend the Monroe doctrine into the economic sphere. We know Ronald Reagan was one of the first people to propose that when he announced his candidacy for the US presidency the first time.

What we did not know was that we had a kind of junior assistant on the Tory benches willing to float this trial balloon on behalf of the US government. The resolution in effect calls for sectoral free trade. The Treasurer made a case for such a program to a Senate committee, which actually rejected the approach because "the committee has failed to detect any American interest in this" -- that is, sectoral -- "pragmatic approach." If the US now shows an interest, we must ask why.

First, they want to have access to what we call services, and one third of US exports are now in services. What that means basically is the high-technology, computer and banking industries and that is what they are looking for with this approach.

There are a number of other points I would like to make, but in the remaining two minutes, I simply want to say that the Ontario government would be playing directly into the hands of the United States if it followed and supported a free trade approach instead of setting up an independent economic policy.

I just want to quote a few things in support of that. The Toronto Star published very strong editorials on both April 2 and April 16, and I want to give two quotes from its editorial of April 2.

"If Canada moves to greater free trade with the United States, our ability as a nation to have different social and economic policies would be jeopardized.... But Canada's potential loss of freedom on the policy front cropped up repeatedly in comments made by American and Canadian trade experts at a recent Canadian Manufacturers Association conference on Canada-US sectoral free trade in Montreal....

"For Canadians, the warning signs could not be any clearer. Closer ties to the US, via new free trade arrangements, would undermine our economic sovereignty and ultimately restrict our political freedom.

"Canada would no longer be free to set its own tax levels," etc. "These costs for Canada of pursuing a free trade deal with the US are far from being acceptable."

Last, I want to quote a person dear to the Tory heart, Mr. Hugh Segal, who said: "It is strange that some in Ottawa should be so eager to advance free trade that they would neglect to pursue the domestic options which, by maximizing our economic opportunities at home and making our domestic market more efficient, could reduce the need for the dubious free trade option. A positive economic agenda must serve Canada's long-term interests, not a response to short-term economic pressures.

"Sir John A. Macdonald beat the Liberals on reciprocity and free trade in the late 1800s. He stood for Canada and a national policy. He was right then. He would be right today." I would like the Tories to follow the example of Sir John A. Macdonald.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague the member for Durham-York for proposing his well-timed and thoughtful resolution. I fully support the honourable member's resolution since I believe it is vital for our province to ensure its best interests are represented in any federal-US discussions on an issue as crucial to us as trade.

In my remarks to the House today I would like to speak in broad terms about the necessity of supporting a free trading system and of ensuring that our manufacturers and industries can function in a fair and equitable trading system. I would also like to point out a number of other options which we as policymakers might consider in promoting trade and development in our province.

Trade is vital for our economic wellbeing and prosperity. It is imperative that we understand the forces affecting our trade with our neighbour to the south and with the rest of the world, and that we develop strategies to deal with the new realities.

One reality in the world today is that record levels of unemployment in the industrialized countries are generating protectionist trade policies. These are putting tremendous strains on government and on multilateral trading frameworks.

Realistically in the years ahead, some trade-restricting measures by governments will probably be inevitable. What I think will be crucial in future is that governments work together to minimize the adverse effects of such measures, and to ensure such actions do not impair the function of the world trading system.

Our collective wellbeing is dependent on a strong, liberal and fair trading system. The challenges of current domestic problems, with the key concern being jobs, do weigh heavily on the determination of trade policies.

The arguments for protective measures are pretty convincing. At a time of record high unemployment, imports are seen to cost jobs. On the other hand, restrictive measures by one country beget restrictive measures by others. Trade is not a zero-sum game with winners or losers. With trade, we are all winners. With protectionism, we all ultimately lose.

The problem is that it is one thing to believe in the principle of free trade, but it is quite another matter to participate in a system where not all nations play by the same rules.

An example of the situation our automakers are faced with is in contending with Japanese imports. Allow me to elaborate on this for a few minutes,

At the auto symposium held in the fall of 1983, the vice-president of General Motors described how GM had spent 54 million in Canada in the past five years to come to terms with the foreign imports. The main theme emanating from the conference was that despite everything GM, Ford and Chrysler are doing to match foreign competition they are working in an environment in which the Japanese hold unfair advantages.

For one, the Canadian auto industry is severely hampered in terms of international competitiveness by the advantageous exchange rates of the Japanese yen. Further, Canadian manufacturers feel the federal sales tax system is more favourable to imports than to domestically produced cars.

Last, Japanese competition has structural competitive advantages related to such things as their different social order and their lower labour costs. Thus, the Canadian auto industry feels it is working in an unfair environment and that this situation has to be neutralized. As they put it, everybody should play by the same rules. If Japan is allowed to reap here, it should also be made to sow here.

The Canadian auto industry believes the rules of the auto pact should be applied to the Japanese and other foreign competitors. The Japanese are, of course, not enthusiastic about such proposals.

A study commissioned by the Canadian Association of Japanese Automobile Dealers points out that cost-cutting and productivity are better answers for the North American and Canadian car industry than a retreat into protectionism.

The fact is that we are doing just that. The North American car industry is going full tilt ahead in order to modernize, to robotize, to adapt new management techniques and to introduce new technology, but it needs breathing space to fully get back on its feet. It also needs to function in a fair market environment.

The demand that Japanese manufacturers play by the same rules as we do is reasonable. It is not a protectionist stance, simply a nationalistic and realistic one. The answer may lie in increased co-operation. In fact, there appears to be a growing trend towards increased co-operation, not only among domestic participants of the car industry, but also on the international level.

For example, more and more Japanese companies are forging links to US auto makers. Many believe this is the best way to reduce trade friction. Canada should also seek such cooperation with Japan.

Unless the Japanese do make some concessions to the domestic industry, unless Japanese producers do start investing in Canada, Ottawa will find it difficult to resist the industry's demand for more protection.

We must realize the key word in today's trading relationships and economic growth is "interdependence," the interdependence of North America and western Europe, the interaction of Japan with those blocs, and the linkage of trade and finance between the industrial democracies and the developing countries. We are living in an interdependent world.

To ensure balanced and sustainable growth, the greatest challenge facing Canada in the 1980s is to preserve the international economic system. Economic policies of individual governments must ensure that both domestic and international implications are taken into consideration. It is disturbing to see the United States, traditionally in the vanguard of the free trade movement, starting to move away from this concept.

Fred Bergston, director of the Institute for International Economics in Washington, is quoted by the Washington Post as saying, "Despite the rhetoric of free trade, the Reagan administration has allowed more restrictive measures in the past two years than any administration since the 1930s." In fact, many experts believe that the White House, worried about the upcoming election, is ready to grant import trade restriction measures to vulnerable US industries.

An example of such a measure already mentioned by my colleague the member for Durham-York is the new tariff imposed on imported steel specialty products. The most immediate danger to our country is the new US safeguard investigations of carbon steel and copper imports. For Canada, these two items represent between $1.2 billion and $1.7 billion worth of exports annually. The safeguard investigations involve studies by the United States International Trade Commission to determine whether imports have caused serious injury to the domestic industry of the United States. If the ITC finds injury, the president of the ITC has the authority to take restrictive actions.

Parallel action on steel has also been initiated in the United States Congress. A bill has been introduced reducing steel imports from 20 per cent to 15 per cent of US demand. This action could reduce annual exports of Canadian steel by about $400 million. Canadian trade officials expect similar protectionist measures to be launched against uranium imports, canned tuna and some footwear products.

Furthermore, some industries in the United States have begun advocating more restrictive trade measures and protection of proprietary rights for US technology, patents and software. Canada must think seriously about how to get out from this protectionist net. If not, Canadian exporters may be facing the worst threat of trade protectionism in decades, despite the continuing recovery in North America.

We must re-evaluate our trade relationships with the United States, simply because they are so important to us. The USA is Canada's best customer. In 1983, Canadian exports of merchandise to the US amounted to US $54 billion. This is three quarters of our total exports of merchandise. Conversely, Canada is also the best customer of the United States. In 1983, the US sold $44 billion worth of goods to Canada, compared with $22 billion to Japan and $55 billion to all the countries of Europe combined.

All in all, we would be very foolish to neglect any opportunity to build our trading relationships with our southern neighbour. However, rather than fighting rearguard actions against protectionism, we should be expending our energies exploring ways to expand our trade with the US.

The federal government is now trying to explore such ways. It is seeking free trade arrangements in selective manufacturing sectors with the United States. Earlier this afternoon, we heard some of the pros and cons of free trade arrangements. Clearly, there is still much to consider in the sectoral free trade approach.

I believe our province has much at stake in the current talks between the United States and Canada. I wholeheartedly support my colleague's resolution. I suggest to the House that we collectively urge our government actively to participate in the ongoing negotiations.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate, recognizing that the motion is one which could be supported or not supported, because it would not make much difference. What we are really suggesting is participating in talks the federal government already has under way.

We are all aware that Ontario would play a larger role in the sectors that are being discussed with respect to lifting the barriers and allowing more free trade. That is acknowledged. In the first analysis, I think the government of Canada is going to have to take the initiative on a Canada-wide basis. This is one time where a strong national government should head up this whole study, because there are parts of Canada that could enjoy some help while others would pay the price for it.

The biggest problem I have in accepting free trade is the fact that we are talking about a giant neighbour. We are talking about a country with some 10 times the population of Canada and about a market that can provide a great buying force as opposed to the very limited one we have.

We have had experience in lowering our barriers. I would like someone to prove to me that Canada came out even, let alone got the best of that arrangement. For many years Canada suffered terribly from the so-called free trade in our automotive industry. We have never, on balance, come anywhere near our American friends. Had we entered a reasonable agreement with American producers and consumers, we might have had an arrangement where we would have been guaranteed equal opportunity on the numbers of automobiles and parts, at least that were used in Canada. Such was not the case.

There are specific areas of which Canadians can be very proud. In the new computer age, for a country our size, we are world leaders. In communications, that goes without question. But there are many people who do not know that Canada, and Ontario in particular, has the most efficient steel mills anywhere in the world. The very first steel mill that developed continuous casting, called concast, was in Welland. They could take molten metal, have it solidify in a copper-chilled jacket and bring a steel slab out the other end with molten steel going in at the feed end of the concast machinery. Canada led in that field.

In Niagara Falls we had a small experimental plant that got involved in the research and development of a steel plant that could make a very high quality steel from low-grade ore and low-grade coal. That sort of thing has put Canada in the forefront of the steel industry.

I make so much mention of that industry because we can take pride in the fact that we are as good as there is in the world in producing steel and some steel products and in having one of the most up-to-date pipe plants in the world in Welland. I think the production of that plant in a size somewhere about one metre in diameter is one mile of pipe per day.

Interjection.

Mr. Kerrio: That is right. We do have tremendous ability, capacity and the wherewithal to be top-notch producers in particular areas. The sad state of affairs in that industry, where we are so good, is that we cannot get the Americans to co-operate in any way on free trade in the steel industry. The steel companies in Bethlehem and in Pittsburgh -- huge, monstrous companies -- have not kept pace with some of our steel companies here in Canada.

While one might think that Americans would have no fear of trading equally with Canada anywhere across the board, they have certainly taken the initiative in protecting their steel industry. They have even coerced the union into taking a strong stand, even though it is an international union. It seems very strange that it could forget its brothers and sisters in Canada when it comes to looking after its own interests at home.

In that industry, where we are tremendously efficient and where we can compete, one sees that we are wasting our time in talking to our American friends about some measure of letting down the tariff barriers.

When I consider US control of Canadian companies, I think of another sort of lever the Americans have that we Canadians do not have. The honourable member knows full well that if we had some equal opportunity in trading, the Americans would have the advantage of having a similar company in the United States of America. If it were to their advantage to have free trade in that area, they would use it; if they did not, they could then depend on the production from their own plant. In fact, if it became too much of a problem for them when there was expansion or any other area that needed help in any kind of tariff arrangement, the Americans could conceivably pull back and build back home.

It is very strange to have witnessed in Chrysler one of the great miracles in this age of a company coming back from the brink of disaster. We have a gentleman in the person of Mr. Lee Iacocca talking about protectionism. Can honourable members imagine that Chrysler could say in its ads: "We are not afraid of the Japanese or the Germans or any other firm now in the trade. We build a better car. We build it cheaper and more efficiently." The fact of the matter is that Mr. Iacocca says, "I can take on Mr. Toyota," but adds, "President Ronald Reagan has to start taking on the Japanese government by providing incentives to domestic industries and protection from foreign ones."

Members can see that we cannot deal. We cannot and should not attempt to have barriers dropped too readily in dealing with that giant next door. In nearly every instance and every time we have had such an arrangement, we came out second best.

We do need a commitment in our Canada, in our Ontario to bring our natural resources into play, to teach our young people the kinds of trades required to turn out finished products, to become very efficient in those areas and in that way to produce better products at a better price. It is as they describe the mousetrap: if you build a better one, the world will beat a path to your door.

We are lacking better-quality merchandise at a price that would allow us to deal with other nations, even with some tariff barriers, and that would provide the wherewithal to get our nation moving again, to get our young people upgraded and to move in that direction.

Sometimes I wonder whether it has been such a great, wonderful blessing in this country to have had so many natural resources. It seems for too long we have been exporting those natural resources while other people with fewer resources of their own have developed the human element to a much greater degree than we have in Canada. It seems today in this modern age we are still going overseas and still asking people in some of the special trades to come over here. When we are leading in some fields, we are really so far back in developing the potential of our young people.

Again it is very important to look to those jurisdictions that have not had nearly the blessings we have had in natural resources but instead have developed the natural resources of their young people, their work force and indeed of all their citizens.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to get on the record very quickly that I recognize there is some merit in some of the things that are discussed here, but I have to say it is again a very simplistic solution being proposed to a complicated problem, and I cannot support it.

I think all of us in our own communities have seen decisions reached by American head offices that have destroyed our local economy, and this is essentially what the member is pointing towards in these free trade agreements. Even in the ones that have in the long run probably been successful, such as the auto pact, we have still seen that the choice is very often made between production facilities in the United States and those in Canada, and when the head office is in the United States, the choice will be for the United States.

We are opening up our work force to an increasing amount of capital that is very mobile and looks at production on a worldwide basis, and we will suffer dramatically if we attempt to adhere to what is really a rather 18th-century romantic notion about what doing business is all about. There is no such thing as free trade in this world, and we should recognize that. Until we do, we are in dire circumstances. There is no such thing as a simplistic answer such as this one accomplishing very much.

We should understand, in the Durham region particularly, that we have lost a Firestone plant because of a decision made in an American head office. We have lost a Houdaille plant because of the same kind of decision. It was not because there was not a market for that product, because in the Houdaille plant, for example, there is now another company, A. G. Simpson, using the same machinery, producing very much the same kind of goods -- in fact, using in many cases the same workers. So the viability of the product is there, but the decision-making process was not there, and so we lost that production facility.

The examples, I think, should make it clear in all members' minds that this kind of simplistic notion, although it may have some attraction in an academic discussion, is a disaster in the hard reality of the business world today. There is no such thing as free trade, and we ought to understand that. The very best we can hope to get out of this process is negotiated fair trade, and that is very difficult to come by these days as well.

It all has to be put in a context, and the thing that bothers me most of all is that we seem to cling very dearly to these old-fashioned notions that somehow if you could just do this or you could just do that, or if you could bring back a concept that worked a century or two ago, all things would be resolved.

That is not the case, and it is going to be aggravated by the current world economic situation. The mobility of capital is going to destroy this economy unless we get together at some point and recognize that whatever solutions are found to our economic problems, they will come from some union of both labour and management people and government. If we do not get that triumvirate in gear and working together towards common solutions, no matter what we do, we will not have resolved a thing.

There is a need to work and to work hard at developing a system that provides economic answers from a number of perspectives. Then I think the first major problem probably would be simply to recognize that the world is not as simple as it used to be; we have to understand that and make it work in our favour.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): The member for Durham-York has about one minute for wrapup.

Mr. Stevenson: I will use it, Mr. Speaker. As I have said and as other members have said, there are many advantages and possible disadvantages to sectoral free trade, but if discussions do not go on and if the terms and conditions of both sides are not placed very clearly on the table, then the people involved will not be able to make the final decisions.

I hope the federal government, with significant input from the province, will continue to conduct these discussions, and when those terms and conditions are on the table, I hope they will have the wisdom to decide whether in each one of these sectors it is in the Canadian best interest and the provincial best interest. If it is not, I hope they will decide not to go forward; if it is in our best interest, then fine. I do not accept the idea that just because it is good for the United States it is automatically not a positive thing for Canada.

LIQUOR CONIROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Boudria moved second reading of Bill 8, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act,

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to debate in the House this afternoon Bill 8, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act. Members will know that this bill has attracted considerable attention since I first introduced it to the press on March 2 and since it was subsequently introduced for first reading in this Legislature on March 22, 1984.

It is interesting to note that most civilized countries in the world do sell wine in grocery stores. I do say "most." There are also some Canadian provinces that have mechanisms by which wine and beer are sold in grocery stores. For instance, in Quebec, wine has been sold in grocery stores since September 18, 1978.

Today, we are not discussing whether or not wine is to be sold in grocery stores. We are debating whether wine will be sold in small independent grocery stores or whether we will continue with the present system of having liquor stores and wine boutiques exclusively. These boutiques are stores inside other stores that are no less than 1,600 square feet in area.

There are three themes to Bill 8. The first is the consumer theme. I find it absolutely unacceptable that in 1984 we have to make a song and dance to be able to buy a bottle of wine in this province. As a rural resident, I have to drive by five or six small independent grocery stores before I get to a liquor store where I have to stand in line to buy a bottle of Ontario wine. I find that procedure unacceptable and, frankly, archaic and Victorian.

The second theme of this bill is the small independent business theme. As we know, in Ontario the chain stores have 72.7 per cent of the market. That is an alarming rate of corporate concentration of the food industry in Ontario. Conversely, in Quebec, which permits the sale of both wine and beer in small independent grocery stores, the chains have only 36 per cent of the market. It is interesting to note that is basically the only difference in retailing groceries in the two provinces.

It has been estimated by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that if both wine and beer were sold in grocery stores, the profitability of those stores would increase by an average of $200 a week per small independent grocer in Ontario. This is not small potatoes. This is an important feature for the small business men and women of this province.

Numerous studies have been done on this issue. In May 1982, the Canadian Federation of Retail Merchants prepared a report advocating that wine be sold in grocery stores. A similar report was produced by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business on November 8, 1982. On May 5, 1983, the same organization again produced a report and sent it to cabinet.

Most members of the Legislature will recall the Royal Commission into Discounting and Allowances in the Food Industry of Ontario. That commission's report recommended that wine be sold in grocery stores in this province.

Some of us even listen to such things as public opinion polls. The people opposite are known to do that occasionally. The folks who do should know that Paul D. Allen and Associates Ltd., a consulting firm, has recently released a public opinion poll that estimates 70 per cent of the people polled are in favour of wine being sold in grocery stores in this province. The polling folks opposite will be very interested in this.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, an outfit that has been known to do some polling of its own on occasion, did a poll a number of months ago and came up with the same brilliant realization.

There is also a petition I have tabled in this Legislature. At present, more than 4,000 people have signed in favour of such a feature in Ontario.

5 p.m.

The third theme of my bill is the wine growers' theme. The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) will speak at length about this later.

I am extremely concerned that we are potentially losing a very valuable industry in this province right now. Competition from abroad and the lowering of our currency vis-à-vis the European currencies -- notwithstanding the lower value of our dollar in comparison to the US, we still have the second strongest currency in the world -- have resulted in cheaper European wines. We know the European Economic Community subsidizes that industry tremendously and that has also lowered their prices over there. Our province's wine industry is suffering at this time.

Mr. Riddell: We just tax it.

Mr. Boudria: That is correct; we just tax it.

Let me explain to the member of this House how the bill works. First, small independent grocers would be permitted to sell wine in grocery stores. In this bill I have proposed that grocery stores under 1,000 square metres be permitted to do so. I must say that some federations, especially the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, have asked that the size be increased somewhat. Once this bill is passed today and goes into committee, I would be perfectly willing to entertain an amendment to increase that amount slightly, to make sure it does give the largest benefit to as many people as possible.

There is also provision in the bill whereby a grocer would have a minimum amount of groceries on hand at all times, a minimum to be specified by the minister by regulation. The purpose of this is to ensure a grocery store does not have 100 cases of wine and two cans of sardines in the window. We do want to help our existing independent grocery stores. I know the member for Humber (Mr. Kells) is listening very attentively and has taken note of that.

Mr. Samis: Is the member for Humber the hatchet man today?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Boudria: I want all members to know chains would not be permitted to participate in this. A chain is defined as more than four stores belonging to the same individual company. An individual who owns four stores or less would be able to have wine in his or her small independent grocery store. Franchises, where they are members of a buying group only, would be permitted to participate in this as well.

Some government members have instilled fear in the wine industry in this province, saying this bill would contravene the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I find this very interesting. We know Ontario never even signed that document. This is a federal thing and an international matter. This province has not concerned itself with that too much before.

Notwithstanding that, I want to point out to all members that, under the legislation we have right now, regulation 580, section 3(1) of the Liquor Control Act reads as follows: "Subject to the approval of the board, a manufacturer of Ontario wine" -- note "Ontario wine," members opposite -- "may establish a government store for the retail sale of wine manufactured by him in accordance with the act."

We know it is not a question of whether or not Ontario wine can be sold in grocery stores. That is already in the act. What we are discussing today is the size of the store. That is the discussion -- whether one wants to help big business or small business of this province. The choice is up to the members opposite.

We have discussed the issue of alcoholic consumption in the past. I find that very interesting. I want members to know that in Quebec, where they have been selling wine in grocery stores since September 18, 1978, the amount of wine consumed has increased somewhat. That is quite true. However, the amount of spirit alcohol consumed in Quebec has been steadily declining to such a point it now ranks 11th among the 12 Canadian jurisdictions. Ontario's consumption of spirit alcohol is far greater. That has only been the case since grocery stores began selling wine in Quebec.

I want members to know it has not resulted in increased consumption. It has resulted in a decrease in the consumption of alcohol in that province. I am looking forward to the speech that will be made later by the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) on this issue.

There has been some pressure or a belief by members opposite that small grocery stores would be more apt to sell to minors. Would you believe that? Some members of this Legislature think small businessmen are less responsible than big businessmen. We know which side the government is on when it starts thinking that way.

Small business in this province has no lessons to take from big business. Let us examine the pollution issues of this province or any other issues, Mr. Speaker. Our small business people are every bit as responsible as the big business people of this province. They do not have to apologize to anyone for the way they act.

We know that grocery stores selling wine would be licensed. That licence has a value and they would not want to lose it. They would act responsibly as they have in the past. Small businesses have always acted responsibly. The issue was raised the last time this debate took place that it was immoral for the small business to partake in the profit of selling alcohol in this province. That was raised by the member for Carleton a couple of years ago. Would you believe that? This government can live off the avails from the sale of alcohol to the tune of $1.2 billion a year and then tell others they cannot partake in the profit. It has the nerve to come up with arguments such as this.

I have explained the main themes of the bill I propose here today. I want to tell the members this bill has the support of various groups -- the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers, the National Association of Tobacco and Confectionery Distributors and the Oshawa Group of wholesale distributors. The Wine Council of Ontario gave its support when I initially presented it. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture and several others have all supported this bill. I urge all members of this Legislature to give it their support as well.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill 8. I want to deal with the principles in the bill and not the details of the number of square feet or anything like that. If it is passed, those details can be amended when we get into committee of the whole House.

On this issue, as on most issues which come before this House, one has to weigh the benefits against the disadvantages and the harms, if any, that can be caused by enacting such legislation. It is obvious, as the member who initiated the bill has pointed out, that the benefits are very substantial, He has mentioned the benefits to the independent grocery stores. I am not sure whether he mentioned -- I believe he did -- that, in Quebec, sales by the independent grocery stores now total more than $100 million a year in wine alone. Those kinds of sales have to be very beneficial to them financially. As a matter of fact, they sell -- the figures I saw are two or three years old -- 50 per cent as much as does the Quebec liquor board.

The grape growers, the wineries and the workers -- certainly in places such as the Niagara Peninsula -- will benefit immensely from the passage of this bill. If the same pattern were followed here as was followed in Quebec, it would mean the consumption of Ontario wine would close to double. Can members imagine what that would do to the grape growers and to the employees, of which there are now thousands -- some of them part-time -- who are working in the grape and wine industry?

The farmers and the wineries have adapted to consumer demand in this province. The wines we produce now are as good as any in the world. This would give many more consumers the opportunity to partake of those wines.

I took out a little clipping from the April 24 issue of Farm and Country in which these words are printed:

"Taste buds are picking Canadian wine over French. A blind taste testing held in Toronto had two experts and four other wine drinkers with conditioned taste sampling six of Ontario's finest and some French wines at the same price. On the zero-to-20 scale, the Ontario wines ranked 9.7, and the French were given an alarming 8.9 rating. Some may be stunned that the Ontario wine industry has bounded at a remarkable pace over the past few years."

5:10 p.m.

There is no question our wines are now equal to any produced anywhere in the world. This kind of solution, which I think is unquestionably going to mean substantially larger sales of Ontario wines, is certainly very tempting because there appears to be no alternative way to increase the consumption of our Ontario wines vis-à-vis those of the imports.

In January of this year, largely because of the dumping of French imports, sales of Ontario wines were down by 14 per cent. In February sales were down by 20 per cent and in March down by 23 per cent. The executive director of the Grape Growers' Marketing Board has estimated farmers will probably be able to sell only about 50 per cent of their crop this year.

The benefits from the passage of this bill will apply to wine drinkers in society generally. They will be getting good wine. They will be getting lots of choice, even if it is all Ontario wine. The public has a stake in this. It has a stake in the funding of the research station at Vineland. The Ontario government partly funded the changeover of vines to vinifera and hybrids from labrusca grapes. Ontario people have put a substantial amount of money into this industry. We have a stake in it and we cannot let it go down the drain.

Finally in its favour, there is no question it is what the public wants. The ministry's own polls show that 57 per cent of the people of this province were in favour of having wine sold in the grocery stores and only 42 per cent were opposed to it. As has already been mentioned, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers and the growers and wineries are obviously all totally in favour of this kind of legislation. There is no question it is a popular and very beneficial move.

There is always another side to the issue, however, when one is discussing the sale of alcoholic beverages. Some questions have to be asked. Will this encourage more people to drink alcoholic beverages? Will the people who drink drink more than they have in the past? Will people start drinking at a younger age? If we are concerned about the wellbeing of society, if we are concerned about the people we represent, we have to be concerned about the effects of increased alcoholic consumption and judge every bill we pass on whether it will promote greater consumption or decrease that consumption.

There is no question that in this nation as a whole and in this province there has been a headlong rush in the last few decades towards greater and greater consumption of alcoholic beverages. I have the figures here, and they are quite staggering. A Gallup poll taken on April 16 showed that alcohol consumption staggered -- and that was the word they used -- to a new high.

The Addiction Research Foundation has published books that show the tremendous breadth of this problem we face with regard to alcohol consumption. In the last 50 years the consumption of alcohol has gone up from 2.81 litres per capita to 11.5 litres. At the same time, cirrhosis of the liver has increased by the same percentage, and all the other problems associated with alcohol have increased in the same manner.

We saw in yesterday's Toronto Star a report that has been released by Ottawa which says one in every 10 deaths is now blamed on alcohol, and that is pretty serious. When we are talking about half a million deaths in this nation, 50,000 of which each year are the result of alcohol, as 30,000 are the result of tobacco, it is pretty serious. Any responsible government has to want to try to reduce the consumption of alcohol.

I received a letter from, Mr. Gillespie, who is the president for Ontario of the Retail Merchants Association of Canada, Inc. He stated in the letter that it means a reduction in alcohol consumption. I asked him to write and provide me with some proof. I did not receive a reply to that letter.

However, I have done enough investigation on my own, particularly with the statistics that come from Quebec, which shows there is nothing to indicate selling wine in grocery stores will increase the consumption of alcohol generally. The general information is that it would likely decrease the net consumption of alcohol.

Because of that, there should be nobody in this House who would vote against the bill we have before us today. I think we should stop advertising alcoholic beverages if we want to reduce consumption of them. With this bill that would permit wine to be sold in grocery stores, I suggest it gives us the best of both worlds. It helps out our own farmers and helps out the wine industry, and will reduce the consumption of alcohol.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill because I believe that as legislators we either believe in the laws we pass or we do not believe in them. I am going to leave that as a question for the members opposite. Do they or do they not believe in the laws we pass?

I also want to deal with a couple of issues two members have spoken about in this short period of time and dispute some of the things they have talked about. I am not going to get into the issue of wine in the store per se because, on the face of it, that is all simple.

Mr. Boudria: Do not talk about the bill. We do not want the member to do that.

Mr. Mitchell: Come on now. Did I interrupt the member?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mitchell: Let us not even talk about wine in the stores. On the surface, to put wine in grocery stores seems all so simple, but there is a variety of things we are forgetting.

The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) talked about the --

Mr. Boudria: That is me.

Mr. Mitchell: Just a minute now. The member talked about the mom and pop stores. If wine were to go into the stores, how many of those stores would have to change their whole method of operation? Think about that. I am talking about one thing the member for Prescott-Russell and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swan) chose to ignore, namely, the issue of jobs.

They are not the jobs we think of people occupying for an eight-hour day, but the jobs of the young people who are going to our high schools who want to earn a little extra income while they are going to school. The kids, the sons and daughters, at the five stores the member for Prescott-Russell can drive to within a few blocks of his house would not be able to work in those stores if my understanding of the law is correct.

The point of the matter is who has passed the legislation.

Mr. O'Neil: You have to have more faith in our youth than that.

Mr. Mitchell: Sure, I have faith in our youth, absolutely. The fact is the members have passed certain laws and the law clearly says, as I understand it, no one who is under age can sell spirits.

If the members want to deal with the supermarkets, I can tell them the supermarkets do not want anything to do with it, at least not the ones I talked to.

Interjections.

Mr. Mitchell: All right, that is fine. If the member for Prescott-Russell wants to say he will cost young people their jobs, that is fine. I will leave it on the record that the member is not concerned about the jobs of the young people who are working in the stores. He is not concerned about the sons and daughters at the mom and pop operations who look for some form of allowance by working for their parents. That is what the member is talking about.

These young people, whether it be at Mac's Milk or Becker --

Mr. Boudria: Mac's Milk is not even included.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: I am not talking specifically about it. I am talking about the whole issue of where it is going to be available. The member should use his own mom and pop example. If they do not have children of their own, they may hire some neighbourhood kids, who are usually 16 or 17 years old.

The member talked about having faith in our young people, and I do. However, what about the young person who is in that store one evening -- as many of them are -- unattended when his friends come into the store and start the peer pressure going?

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, now he does not even trust them.

Mr. Mitchell: Is it a case of trust? I happen to have five children and I know what peer pressure can be, as I am sure the member does.

Mr. Samis: Are they against the bill? Are the member's kids against the bill?

Mr. Boudria: Too bad they are not sitting here.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not know. As I say, the record will show the member is supporting the bill the way it is now worded, which would literally ignore the situation of young people working in these stores.

I am not casting any aspersions at all on the young people who are working in these stores. One automatically admires them because they are attempting to earn a little bit of money for themselves. Let me ask the member this: Does he want to go to American-type shopping in Ontario? What is he going to do to control the access?

His bill looks like an easy one to support. It talks about allowing the small grocer to sell wine, but he must also sell a certain value of groceries and what not.

Mr. Boudria: That is not what I said.

Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps I am paraphrasing. However, what does the small grocer do with the supply of wine he has on the premises under our current laws which would not allow it to be sold on Sunday? How does one close it off? How does one say to people --

Mr. Philip: It is already done. Parts of supermarkets are already closed off on Sunday.

Mr. Mitchell: It is very good for the member for Prescott-Russell to stand up here to talk about what appears to be a motherhood piece of legislation. However, I have to ask the member who is opening up into this discussion to look at the effects of selling wine in the small grocery stores. Does he ever think of the effect it would have on his union members, about whom he is so flaming concerned, who are manning those wine stores? They would start losing the business. The stores would wind up having to let them go. He is not concerned about his union cohorts then, is he?

Mr. Philip: What stores?

Mr. Mitchell: I do not know.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections please.

Mr. Mitchell: It strikes me that be it the liquor store or be it the existing stores out there, if the member lets this go through the way it is worded, these are some of the problems it will create. This is my concern.

The member for Prescott-Russell said I was talking on moral grounds. Is it moral grounds to be concerned about jobs for the young people? I have five children and they have all started trying to be independent at an early age. They have all worked in the small stores and what not. I recognize that if they are in the store and somebody wants something badly enough, they are going to want to get it. The pressure they are going to apply on those young people will be very hard to deal with.

Second, in doing what the member for Prescott-Russell is attempting to do, he has to recognize there are other statutes and other laws which he, his party or his members opposite have had a hand in passing. Either they believe in them or they do not. It is all very good and the bill seems very straightforward. I happen to think one very major point has been ignored; that is employment.

In the Liquor Control Board of Ontario there are 3,476 employees. How many of those positions would be lost?

Mr. Philip: None.

Mr. Mitchell: Oh, come on, Ed. How can you come out with that? Don't be silly.

Mr. Philip: If I am asked a question, I would be happy to tell you.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the member for Carleton that he must refer to the members by riding and not by name.

Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry. Before I precipitate any more undue argument, that is the area I am concerned about. I cannot support the bill the way it is so simply worded, and I must oppose it.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, as seconder of the bill, of course I am going to support it. I was elected in 1975 --

Mr. Ruston: Great year. We almost pushed you guys out then.

Mr. Kerrio: -- and when I came to this Legislature, in the legislative dining room of the --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Almost, but not quite.

Mr. Kerrio: Gordon, are you not listening?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I thought you went over the falls yesterday.

Mr. Kerrio: Listen.

Mr. Ashe: Keep going.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on my first visit to the legislative dining room of this province, our Ontario wines were not listed in the wine list in this dining room.

Mr. Bradley: No. We had to give hints to get them listed.

Interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: It was awful. It simply is disgraceful to think that an industry employing as many people as it does --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is because the only kind the New Democratic Party will drink is imported wine.

Mr. Kerrio: Let me hurt the minister now: This is an industry that employs as many people as it does and that gives the kind of support the Tory party gets from those wine manufacturers in the Niagara Peninsula. Let the members opposite laugh that one off if they will.

The fact is they did not see fit to list good Ontario wines on the wine list in this Legislature. They had named imported wines and in a small spot at the bottom, it said, "Domestic wines, red or white."

If we are to rely on that government to do something significant in the year 1984, we shall wait a long time before it will do anything about an industry that has turned the world around with respect to winemaking. It was not that many years ago that our winemakers were making wine with a grape that did not have the kind of sugar content with which you could develop a very decent wine, so the wineries were making wine with the product they had at hand.

Over the past 30 years, between the wine companies, particularly those in Niagara, the provincial research facilities at Vineland and the federal government, we have developed varieties of grapes in the peninsula that are second to none, except those of the most extremely beneficial climates of some parts of the world. With these new grape varieties we are producing a product that defies even the finest wine tasters to tell the difference between our wines and the very finest wines imported from many of the countries that for a long time have had a reputation for being the only ones that made good wine.

We have an uphill struggle, without the government putting barricades in the way, to sell a very fine product. We are not talking about doing something unconscionable and we are not talking about our young people being intimidated; we are talking about a sensible arrangement.

To answer a few of the questions that seem to be bothering the member for Carleton, a small store would have a small section with steel gates that could be drawn across it on Sunday or at any other time they are not allowed to sell alcoholic beverages. Remember, we are not talking about a bill that is going to make selling wine in every corner grocery store mandatory. We are talking about someone with a good common sense approach to this, the type of person who qualifies and who is of age who is going to be able to put a section in his store. I cannot believe the member opposite could consider the kinds of arguments he has made are valid.

The wine industry, in addition to what I have described to the members, has come through some very difficult times. They have come through a time when they did not have the grapes, as I have described before, and still we extended a bill to allow the blending of imported juices so we could make a very fine product. We have done that here; the government supported it.

There has been a tremendous shift in people's preference from red wines to white wines and the industry has had to survive that. We have had tremendous pressure from offshore wines being dumped in Canada, wines produced by nations that need Canadian dollars, which provide very tough competition.

5:30 p.m.

It is next to impossible to believe that one could buy a bottle of wine made in Niagara Falls, Ontario, in Niagara Falls, New York, for $2 less per bottle.

Mr. Wildman: You sound like Mel Swart.

Mr. Kerrio: That is what this government has done for the wine industry of Ontario.

We have now developed such a fine product and we now have tremendous numbers of employees dependent upon that industry. We have many hundreds of thousands of people visit this great province and when they hear "Ontario -- yours to discover!" let them discover some of our fine wines on the shelves of the stores they are going to be shopping in. Let them take that back with them to the United States and let them help that industry. I am sure it would have an impact on those people who visit the centre of tourism to Niagara Falls.

I had one concern and it has not really been resolved, but I am sure the member will entertain some modification of the bill during clause-by-clause deliberations to satisfy some of our wineries and the wine council and their concerns about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We certainly have to live by the GATT.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The GATT is a minor detail. That was a facetious statement, in case you did not know it.

Mr. Elston: George, why do you not speak to the bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, do you not think the clock should stop when I am being interrupted?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Kerrio: All right. I will speak a little faster then. I will play catch up. There is some concern, but I have spoken with the honourable member. He is prepared during clause-by-clause debate to make any kind of adjustment, with all honourable members concurring, that would make the bill acceptable for the GATT.

I am very disappointed there is the resistance on that side to this bill. When we talk about small business, we talk about the businesses that provide some 45 to 50 per cent of the jobs in Canada. It is time we began to consider some options that would make our small businesses more able to support their ventures. I think this is one vehicle that would help them do that.

When we talk about small business, we are not talking in the same sense as the large businesses that have the protection of cartels and monopolies. These do not allow the latitude of really free enterprise.

I am hoping many more members, and I hope some on the other side are going to see the light, will see we have a business here that needs help. The Ontario industry has come a good long way to make a product that is saleable. Many times people spend literally millions of dollars advertising products that are second rate, but in this case, after 30 years of experimenting, we have reached a station in life where we have a quality product.

Because of their numbers, I am hoping at least a good percentage of the government members, not because they are going to do something reasonable and sensible but because they are in such numbers, will support a bill that makes uncommonly good sense, that will not be abused and that will help many areas of unemployment. I am certain that is not going to have some of the effects our friend the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) has suggested.

Mr. Riddell: Why did the member for Carleton not stay around to listen to the response to his concerns?

Mr. Kerrio: He is going to come back when the mover of the bill has some eight minutes to bring it into some kind of context. He will have to read it on the record, I would say to my good friend.

Mr. Riddell: I wonder if Mr. Speaker will convey the response to his concern.

Mr. Kerrio: That will happen, will it not, Mr. Speaker? He was no help today.

Mr. Speaker: I must remind all honourable members this is not question period.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We used up so much time today we did not have very much time left. In any event, in winding up my few remarks, I would hope the honourable members on the other side, at least those who are in attendance, will revise their thinking and will give this bill the kind of support it deserves. I am sure they take the odd bit of Niagara wine and I hope they will support the industry.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the bill. I am sure that will come as no particular surprise. I do feel a little uneasy about the fact the member for Niagara Falls and I are on the same side on this one. Knowing that a colleague of mine from eastern Ontario is proposing the bill, a neighbour, makes it sufficient that I feel comfortable with the member for Prescott-Russell. I will ignore the fact that the member for Niagara Falls and I are on the same side on this one.

Mr. Riddell: The member is just starting to see the light.

Mr. Samis: No way.

Speaking to the point just expressed by my friend, may I remind him and members of the House that in 1974 the member for Stormont riding, yours truly, introduced a bill to allow the sale of beer in independent grocery stores, Since 1974, I have introduced the bill and expanded it to include wine at least seven other times. On June 24, 1982, I had a bill which was debated in this same Legislature which would have allowed the sale of Ontario wine and beer in Ontario grocery stores but it was defeated by that side.

The concept is far from new, the bill in itself is far from new, and I congratulate the member for his initiative. I just hope the members on that side would give a little more attention to what is going on outside this building -- what people are saying and what people are thinking. I think they should open their eyes to other jurisdictions and see how it has worked in those jurisdictions.

Coming from eastern Ontario, naturally the two we look at most carefully are Quebec and New York state. Let me make it abundantly clear again, as I did last time, that I do not support the New York state concept of private liquor stores and the sort of supermarket concept of selling liquor or wine or beer.

The one I think is most appropriate for Ontario is the system that was developed in Quebec where it has proved to be an overwhelming success. The consumers support it enthusiastically. It gives them greater choice, more convenience and more stores in which to purchase the product. Small businesses enthusiastically supported it because they have been able to survive the thrust of the mighty supermarkets. If there is one sector of the economy that needs help, it is the small business sector.

Members should just look at two simple statistics. In Quebec the chains only get 33 per cent of the retail business; in Ontario they get 71 per cent of the retail business.

We can look back to the very first bill, passed in 1951, I believe it was, which allowed the corner stores to sell beer. Then there was the updating of that in the late 1970s to allow them to sell wine, as well as apple cider. One of the fundamental reasons Quebec independent and small retailers can corner 67 per cent of the market is the fact this product is available to them. They have actually made it a free enterprise system, not a monopoly enterprise system as we have here.

The government over there likes to expound a lot of rhetoric about free enterprise and caring about small business. If we look at what is going on in Ontario today in terms of wine, for example, it is a blatantly biased policy in favour of big business. Those kiosks are located in the big supermarkets, and those big --

Mr. Boudria: In those 16,000 square feet or more.

Mr. Samis: The member says they are 16,000 square feet or more. Those 70 or so kiosks complement the Loblaws, the Dominions, the Steinbergs, etc., which are owned by Power Corp. or Argus Corp. These are multinational corporations. These are the biggest of big business in the retail food business. George Weston Ltd. is another example. But when somebody wants to help small business they refuse to do it. That is the hypocrisy of the whole thing. They talk about free enterprise. Here is an opportunity to help small independent grocers, small businessmen in communities across Ontario and they shut the door on them.

5:40 p.m.

There is some talk about loss of jobs. My understanding is that only 10 per cent of the liquor store sales in Ontario are Canadian wine. Even if they were allowed in the corner stores, we would still have people purchasing their Canadian wines in liquor stores. Let us say they lose half their business. Would that mean a loss of jobs? Of course not. That is just nonsense.

The simple fact is that the people of the province now want this change. In my own riding, we took a survey on this a while back and the majority was 79 per cent in favour of the sale of wine in corner stores.

I even have a strange-looking pamphlet called Larry Grossman, MPP, Keeping in Touch, with a picture of you-know-who on the cover. On the back page there is a question, "Do you agree with the proposal to allow wine and/or beer to be sold in grocery stores in Ontario?" The answer is "yes," 69.02 per cent; "no," 29.56 per cent. In the Treasurer's riding, 69 per cent are in favour of this bill.

My colleague has also quoted some other surveys. Whether it is the government's own official survey showing 57 per cent in favour or a consumer survey showing 62 per cent in favour, it is obvious the majority of the people are now prepared to support this measure. It obviously makes sense.

I am not even going to dignify the absurd arguments raised by the member for Carleton by commenting on them. I make this point: He should go to other jurisdictions outside Ontario. It would do him the world of good. He should go to Quebec, certain states in the United States, the Caribbean, Europe or Latin America and see how they do it. He should ask the people if they think it makes sense, if it works, if it offers them what they are looking for or if it is extravagant, corrupting or whatever.

They did a survey in Quebec three years after they introduced their system and there was overwhelming support for the new system of allowing it in small corner stores. Recently we were down in the Caribbean, and I was amazed how liberal their policies were; they have little stores selling beer, wine and liquor.

Since my time is almost up, let me suggest that this would help the wine industry and small business. It would have the support of consumers and it would ultimately expose the hypocrisy on that side of the House because they would have to choose between big business and small business.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Humber.

Mr. Kells: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prescott-Russell had reserved some time, and coincidentally it was eight minutes and 17 seconds, which is the time now.

Mr. Kells: My pleasure; another one they don't get to hear.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to conclude the debate on this bill. I would love to have had the benefit of information from the member for Humber. Unfortunately, because of certain things that happened today in this Legislature, our debate is somewhat shorter than would normally be the case, and we will not be able to listen to the input from the member for Humber. Perhaps he can whisper it in our ears later or indicate in this Legislature how he feels about the issue on some other occasion.

It was interesting to hear some of the arguments brought forward in this debate by spokesmen for the Conservative Party. It is unusual to have a member stand in his place and talk about the fact that this would reduce jobs for our youth. This same government that is responsible for 20 per cent of our young people being out of work is trying to lecture us on how to give jobs to our youth. Does that not epitomize how ridiculous that argument is?

Small business is far more labour-intensive than the big businesses that are the friends of those members. They will ultimately provide far more jobs for our young people.

Mr. Barlow: We have been saying that for years.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You have finally been listening.

Mr. Boudria: Then they should do something and create employment in this province, instead of producing the sanctimonious, archaic, Victorian arguments they have brought forward today against the sale of wine in small, independent grocery stores.

We are talking about how there would be this great pressure on young people to buy wine. We have wine in large grocery stores right now. Does that mean every kid in a shopping centre falls flat on his face in front of the wine outlet inside a Dominion store? It certainty does not. Why would it happen in a small grocery store if it does not happen in a large grocery store?

It is unfortunate we did not have the input of all honourable members today. The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) wanted to participate in this debate. He would have a lot to say about the difficulty of the wine industry and the grape growers in the Niagara Peninsula. I am sure the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) would also have spoken in favour of this bill had he been given the opportunity to do so. We are still hoping at least he will vote for the bill. I am sure the member for St. Catharines will support it, and I hope the member for Lincoln will support it.

This business about jobs being lost in the liquor stores in Ontario is a very weak argument. As has been indicated by the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis), less than 10 per cent of the sales of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario have anything to do with wine. Some of the wine sales are institutional wine sales -- in other words, sales to restaurants, hotels and so forth; the banquet sales -- which means perhaps three or four per cent of the wine sold in liquor stores right now ends up on the consumer's table. Only a percentage of that would be sold by the small independent grocery stores, because the wine boutiques and the LCBO would still exist.

The government of this province is encouraging corporate concentration in the food industry. Liquor stores are usually located in or right beside large shopping centres, which in turn have the large corporate grocery stores. Inside those large corporate grocery stores, the government has licensed the wineries to operate wine boutiques. It has created an atmosphere where big business feeds upon big business, leaving nothing to the small independent merchants of this province. That is what this government has created.

When the member for Carleton says, "What would we do about not selling wine on Sundays?" my own personal view is that I am not against selling wine on Sunday to start with. However, this has nothing to do --

Mr. Mitchell: But that was the question I asked.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Boudria: It may surprise the member for Carleton that this has nothing to do with the issue of selling wine on Sundays, Saturday nights, at six o'clock in the morning on Tuesdays or anything else. The issue we are discussing today is not the hours for selling wine; it is the stores where it is sold.

Mr. Mitchell: You do have to discuss it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mitchell: It is in the context. Come on, you cannot ignore it.

Mr. Boudria: That is a lot of nonsense.

Had the member for Carleton read the bill, he would be far better off making half-credible arguments against it. I do not think he can muster credible arguments no matter how hard he tries. Since he did not bother reading it, his arguments are even less credible than they might have been.

I took some time to read some of the arguments he proposed two years ago against the sale of beer in grocery stores. At that time, in a conversation I had with him, when I said, "Wine should be sold in grocery stores," he said: "That would be much better. That I would like." That is what the member for Carleton told me two years ago. It is interesting to see how the Tories opposite can change their minds when they are whipped into line by their party, which supports its large corporate friends. That is the issue at stake here today.

I have received hundreds of letters from across this province, 4,000 names in favour of this, the names of grocer after grocer supporting this. The member asked, "What happens to the grocery store that does not want this?" Nobody is twisting anybody's arm. A store has to apply for a licence. We all know that. A store would apply for a licence and if it got the licence, it would sell wine. If a store owner is concerned because there are teenagers in his own family, he does not need to apply for a licence. That is very simple and elementary. Nobody forces anyone into business in this province. It is a conscious decision that people take. That has never come across to the member for Carleton.

5:50 p.m.

Let me read a letter I received from one small store in my riding, the J.T. Bradley store in Navan. It was sent to the Minister of Commercial and Consumer Relations (Mr. Elgie) --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Boudria: It reads as follows: "As president of J.T. Bradley and Sons Ltd., an independent grocery store in a small community, I am writing to voice my support of Bill 8 advocating the sale of wine in independent grocery stores in Ontario.

"To be competitive in the operation of a grocery business, it is necessary to have the opportunity to offer as many services as those found in larger chains."

That is the issue.

For instance, the Dominion store in Orleans has a wine shop setup within its confines. This is what those people had to say: "We would welcome the opportunity to offer this service to our customers by our store, which has been in operation since 1898."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Boudria: The government of this province is ignoring the will of the people; some day it is going to have to answer for that. That is all I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stevenson has moved resolution 15.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 8:

Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Birch, Cousens, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Havrot, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, McCaffrey, McCague, Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pope, Robinson, Rotenberg, Scrivener, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Wells, Williams -- 35.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could indicate to the House the business for the remainder of this week and next.

Tomorrow morning we will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, which will start tonight.

On Monday, May 7, we will do the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.

On Tuesday, May 8, in the afternoon and evening we will resume the adjourned debate on Bill 141 in committee of the whole, followed by second readings of Bills 41, 43 and 45.

On Wednesday the usual committees may meet.

On Thursday, May 10, in the afternoon we will deal with ballot items in the names of the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz). In the evening we will conclude the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services and then resume the adjourned debate on the reports of the standing committee on public accounts.

On Friday, May 11, we will do second readings of Bills 36 and 37 and committee of the whole on Bill 42.

The House recessed at 5:56 p.m.

3 mai 1984