Journal des débats 1986-oct-14 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of an order in council appointing Claude L. DesRosiers as Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am delighted to offer on behalf of the government congratulations and welcome to our new Clerk. He occupies a historic position of responsibility in this House, and we wish him well.

Perhaps it is worth while bringing to public attention a substantial departure in this appointment. During the years since Confederation, the appointment of the Clerk and his continuation in office have been the responsibility of the government of the day, but because of the resolution passed by the House some months ago, the appointment of the new Clerk was the responsibility of the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly, which undertook to advertise, to interview and to consult with Mr. Speaker on an appointment that is an excellent one indeed. We are proud to be associated with this new procedure and look forward to serving in the Legislature with the assistance and advice of the Clerk, who is extremely welcome here.

I notice in glancing at his curriculum vitae that the new Clerk was at one stage in his career an elected trustee of a school board in Quebec and an elected alderman; so he has had to face some of the tests and tribulations of the democratic process, which most of us here believe is extremely healthy and an excellent background for anyone dealing in a position of responsibility in the democratic process. We are delighted to welcome him to this House and we wish him well in his new duties.

Mr. Harris: Today marks the passing of a tradition in the Legislature and the beginning of a new era. For 60 years, the Lewis family, father Alex and son Roderick, have served this chamber as Clerks of the Ontario Legislature.

No matter what has been said, I want to assure outgoing Clerk Rod Lewis of the personal friendship and esteem we hold for him. However, today belongs to our new Clerk. I want to welcome Claude DesRosiers to Queen's Park. He has big shoes to fill, and I want him to know that we wish him well.

Mr. DesRosiers is well fitted for this position. A former Clerk of the House of Commons, he has served two years as the principal clerk of the committees and private legislation directorate of the House of Commons. He has also served as principal clerk of the Commons journal branch and has been an adviser to the Commons committee that conducted widespread reforms to the House of Commons rules in 1985.

My colleague the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) would think it remiss if I did not add that Mr. DesRosiers is a native of Sudbury.

The Clerk's traditional role in this Legislature is not one that often occupies public spotlights. That it has in recent days should be no reflection on the competence of either Rod Lewis or Claude DesRosiers. Both are men of proven abilities. This morning when I came into my office, I found the Orders and Notices as well as the agenda of business for the day on my desk -- same time. Since 2 p.m., the affairs of the Legislature have run smoothly, all evidence that Mr. DesRosiers already has a good understanding of how things work here at the provincial level.

I can promise our new Clerk that this will be a lively session and that we will be busy in this Legislature, but I can also promise him the support and the best wishes of my caucus as he sets to work the efficient running of this Legislature.

M. Rae: Laissez-moi exprimer, de la part de notre parti, nos meilleurs voeux au nouveau greffier de la Chambre. Nous voulons assurer à M. DesRosiers qu'il a toute notre confiance.

C'est un événement important dans la vie de la province que d'avoir un fonctionnaire de notre Assemblée qui a vécu dans la province de Québec, qui vient de la ville de Sudbury et qui exprime dans sa vie, le meilleur de la vie du Canada, le meilleur de la vie de notre province.

Sa position en est une sans aucune controverse, comme nous l'avons tous constaté au cours des semaines passées. Nous exprimons à M. DesRosiers notre amitié et notre volonté de travailler avec lui. Nous espérons surtout que sa famille se sentira chez elle à Toronto, qu'elle se sentira chez elle dans notre province.

How historic an occasion it is. Mr. DesRosiers's appointment was an eminently democratic one. It came from a very tough and open competition, which he won. It was agreed to by all three parties that we would proceed in this way. It has been an exemplary process, and we all wish Mr. DesRosiers well in his position, which, as we know from recent experience, is one of absolutely no controversy and no visibility.

We welcome him into the House. We welcome him as a servant of the people. We wish him well. As I said in French, we hope his family finds itself at home in Toronto, as it would anywhere else in Canada. We wish the DesRosiers family well in its move to Toronto, and we look forward to working very closely with him in his new job, about which we all are very excited.

Mr. Speaker: I want to join with all the members in welcoming the Clerk, Claude DesRosiers, to the Legislative Assembly. I, as do all members, look forward to working with him.

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR COCHRANE NORTH

Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received from the chief election officer, and laid upon the table, a certificate of a by-election in the electoral district of Cochrane North.

Electoral district of Cochrane North -- René Fontaine; Province of Ontario.

This is to certify that in view of a writ of election dated June 26, 1986, issued by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and addressed to Paul E. Piché, Esq., returning officer for the electoral district of Cochrane North, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Cochrane North in the Legislative Assembly of this province, in the room of René Fontaine, Esq., who, since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Cochrane North, has resigned his seat, René Fontaine, Esq., has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, dated August 27, 1986, which is now lodged of record in my office.

(Signed) Warren R. Bailie, chief election officer; Toronto, August 27, 1986.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have the honour to present to you and to the House René Fontaine, who was successful in the electoral district of Cochrane North, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now wishes to take his seat.

Mr. Speaker: Let the honourable member take his seat.

René Fontaine, Esq., member-elect for the electoral district of Cochrane North, having taken the oath and subscribed the roll, took his seat.

SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION

Mr. Speaker: On your desks today is a listening device. This equipment will allow you to hear our new simultaneous interpretation service, which will provide translation in both English and French. The same service will also be available in the Amethyst Room.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: I have one more duty to perform. I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming the first group of legislative pages to serve in the fall sitting of the Second Session of the 33rd Parliament, 1986.

Matthew Boume, Simcoe East; Jonathan Budworth, Halton-Burlington; Simon Cadotte, Haldimand-Norfolk; James Cudmore, Armourdale; David de Jong, York Mills; Marie Demers, St. Catharines; Kent Emerson, Erie; Benjamin Fidelak, Timiskaming; Stefanie Fiorini, Victoria-Haliburton; Kimberley-Anne Foster, Algoma; Jay Friedman, York East; Rachel Hendrie, Eglinton; Kirsten Keil, Huron-Bruce; Mark Lieberman, Hamilton West; Mark Passalent, Lincoln; Chantal Prévost, Sudbury East; Mara Shiry, Kitchener-Wilmot; Joel Siebenga, Durham East; Anita Soni, York South; Patricia Vanderlaan, Lanark; Barbara Warner, Scarborough North; Patricia Wilhelm, Perth.

DEMONSTRATION

Mr. McClellan: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I have two points of privilege. I am sorry to have to relay to you that before the opening of the session there was a group from the Ad Hoc Committee for Wei Fu demonstrating in front of the assembly. They were performing a skit that involved costumes. When they concluded their skit, two members of our security staff approached the members of the group, ordered them to hand over one of the costumes, which apparently was a security guard's uniform, attempted to grab the uniform from them and accused them of being in possession of stolen property.

This unfortunate episode took place before a number of representatives of the Chinese media of Toronto. I ask the minister to investigate this unfortunate incident and report back to the House. I would hope an apology would be forthcoming from this assembly to the members of the Ad Hoc Committee for Wei Fu's Complaint.

RETIREMENT OF CLERK

Mr. McClellan: My second point of privilege has to do with the Globe and Mail story that appeared on Saturday, October 11, 1986, in the national edition, which reads as follows:

"Earlier this week the Liberal government approved a retirement settlement in which Mr. McClellan will receive $60,000 in pension benefits, an annual stipend of $31,500, a lump sum payment of $118,000, use of a private secretary, an office at Queen's Park and the use of a driver and limousine."

This is inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker: All members will be glad you have corrected that point in the second part of your so-called point of privilege.

I am unaware of the particulars of what took place in the first item referred to, but I will be happy to agree with the member to look into it and report to the Legislature as soon as possible.

14:17

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Ms. Fish: The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has asked for an opinion on whether to hold an environmental assessment hearing into a proposed deer hunt on a crown game reserve near Peterborough. What a cynical, manipulative use of an important public policy tool.

While the minister pretends to be the protector of Bambi and all that is sweet and light by suggesting an environmental assessment for a deer hunt, he has denied that same important hearing process to several significant projects involving deadly chemicals, many of which may be hazardous to human health.

In fact, the minister has refused an environmental assessment hearing for 37 projects since he took office a year ago. He has failed to keep his leader's promise to bring private projects into the ambit of environmental assessment. He is a man who feels it is now all right to have dioxin, the most deadly chemical we know, contaminate our food chain. He is more interested in Bambi than in possible birth defects to children.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is a shame that on the first day of the fall session I have to rise about another children's aid strike, this one in the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton.

The Liberal government is following a proud Tory tradition of passing through transfers that require the local children's aid societies to go to strikes with their workers because they do not have enough money to handle the increased demands we ask of them through the new legislation we have put forward.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) says he is not at the bargaining table. He is at the bargaining table; he is there with his four per cent pass-through, which guarantees us a strike situation. He is at the bargaining table when it fails.

He cannot claim local autonomy, because he took over the Family and Children's Services of the District of Kenora when he did not like what it was doing. He is at the table now as clearly as anybody else. He is putting the whole mandate of local boards in question. It is now a matter of whether they should even continue to exist, because, as the workers said to him today, he is the boss and it is his responsibility.

The minister said he cared. It is the workers who do the caring, and they cannot afford to do so with the money the ministry is allocating. The lack of funding from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is causing them the terrible trouble they have at the moment. If the minister really cared, he would get more bucks from the Treasurer.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Reycraft: I want to draw the Legislature's attention to the expansion to Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital just approved by my colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). The minister has given the hospital board in Strathroy the green light to implement the planning process that will lead to a $1.5-million addition to the hospital. This addition will allow the hospital to expand its outpatient and ambulatory care programs and thus significantly enhance its ability to serve the health needs of the people of Middlesex county.

Strathroy Middlesex has served the county very well since it first opened its doors in 1914. It was originally built as a 20-bed facility and then was replaced --

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Reycraft: Mr. Speaker, I believe there may have been an error in the timing.

TRADE MISSION

Mr. Baetz: I want to congratulate the Premier (Mr. Peterson) for the remarkable sensitivity to oriental cultural languages with which he dazzled three nations in the Far East, as well as confused and entertained Ontarians of Chinese, Japanese and Korean origin. When the member for London Centre was Leader of the Opposition, all of us recall the very special Christmas greetings he sent to the people of Ontario. He was so eager to spread Christmas cheer that he included in Chinese a statement that wished season's greetings from Jim Coutts.

No one thought the honourable member could top that, but the member for London Centre is full of surprises. As we all know, last month the Premier went to the Far East with a booklet promoting Ontario as a place for investment. On the title page, script appeared in Japanese, and that was okay. There was no problem with Chinese, as there was no mention of Christmas greetings from Jim Coutts. However, the Korean script was upside down.

I hope that our inscrutable shogun from London, Ontario, is learning his lessons well. If he wishes to attract new business, he must show more respect for unique customs and language. The members on this side of the House look forward to his next trip abroad, but hope he will not again turn things upside down as he tries to promote this great multicultural province.

LAKESHORE AREA MULTISERVICES PROJECT

Mrs. Grier: Today in my riding, the Lakeshore area multiservices project is celebrating 10 years of existence. LAMP is a community health centre and a co-ordinator of the delivery of health and social services to southern Etobicoke. It is funded by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Two years ago, it became apparent that our community needed the services of specialists in occupational health and safety. LAMP found a doctor and hired a co-ordinator from its existing budget. In March 1985, application was made to the Ministry of Health for program funding for this occupational health clinic. The district health council rated the application as number one on the list for funding. That was in July 1985. A year later in this House, I drew the minister's attention to the lack of any decision on funding and was told that negotiations were going on between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health. I am still waiting for an answer.

LA TRADUCTION SIMULTANÉE

M. Poirier: A titre de président de la section de l'Ontario de l'Association internationale des parlementaires de langue française, j'ai l'honneur de vous dire tout le plaisir et la fierté que nous avons, aujourd'hui, à siéger à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario.

En effet, nous bénéficions, pour la première fois, d'un système de traduction simultanée à la portée autant des députés que de la population ontarienne. Enfin, nos collègues pourront pleinement comprendre chacune des interventions dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues officielles de notre pays.

C'est une grande journée. Un autre grand pas vient d'être franchi pour la survie et la promotion du français comme langue de travail en Ontario. En mon nom personnel, au nom de tous les députés membres de l'AIPLF-Ontario et au nom de tous les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes, je tiens à remercier tous ceux et celles qui ont appuyé massivement ce projet des plus valables.

We are all very proud that starting today the debates in this Legislative Assembly are fully accessible to all members in the official language of their choice. As a bilingual member whose mother tongue is French, I wish to convey my appreciation to all those who strongly supported this needed addition to make debates better.

De plus, je tiens à souhaiter la plus cordiale bienvenue au nouveau greffier bilingue de l'Assemblée. J'apprécie qu'il ait démontré un tel intérêt envers nos travaux et notre Assemblée, qu'il postula et fut choisi pour y travailler.

I am sure that all members of the assembly are proud of the fact that they will now have a choice and can understand all interventions.

Mr. Speaker: We seem to be having a little trouble with our timing device. Can you inform me if there is more time available?

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, as you and all members of the House are aware, the 1986 International Plowing Match and Farm Machinery Show is history. By all reports and comments it was a success. I would like to take the opportunity to thank all members of this House who attended on opening day and took part in the parade, the opening ceremonies and the ploughing match competitions.

The efforts of members on September 16 set the stage for a successful match. I am pleased that the Honourable Lincoln Alexander was present to open the match officially. We would be considered poor losers if we did not take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) on winning the silver tray.

APPOINTMENT OF REEVE

Mr. Laughren: I would like to raise a matter that is bothering me a great deal and bothering the people in Chapleau a lot. It has to do with the decision of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to ignore a unanimous resolution of the town council of Chapleau to have an election to elect a reeve because the previous reeve had moved away from the community. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has taken it upon himself to appoint a reeve, overriding the wishes of the unanimous vote of the council of Chapleau.

I think it is fundamentally wrong for the minister to appoint a reeve when under the Municipal Act it is clearly within the mandate of that community to have an election for reeve.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired. I hope this matter of our timer will be corrected for the next day when we will have members' statements.

14:27

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RENOVATION OF LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to welcome all members back to the House and point out a few of the changes that have taken place in the chamber. As we can see, the lighting in the House has been enhanced to the point where we will all be well tanned by Christmas.

Electronically controlled television cameras have been installed in the chamber. I think that most members will agree that the workmanship has been excellent. We will have more direct control over the quality of the programming. The sound system in the galleries has been replaced and the balconies have been extended to accommodate the electronic Hansard operators.

A historic event has already been pointed out by a member during members' statements. As recommended by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, facilities are now in place so that members and visitors in the galleries may listen to the proceedings in either of Canada's official languages.

These alterations have been undertaken in the spirit of openness to make the affairs of the Legislature more accessible to the people of Ontario. Further changes, including the additional seating required by redistribution and the improvement of the sound system, will be pursued at an early opportunity.

Mr. McClellan: I want to respond briefly to the remarks of the government House leader with respect to the changes in the assembly. As with all goods things that have happened since March 1985, the electronic Hansard and the simultaneous translation service have flowed from the accord, which was dictated by the New Democratic Party to the Liberal minority government.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Was the IDEA Corp. in the accord?

Mr. McClellan: No. The IDEA Corp. was something that was slavishly copied from the Conservatives.

In particular, I want to thank the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, under the chairmanship of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), for very good and diligent work in preparing background reports on both electronic Hansard and simultaneous translation services. We are able to say that in Ontario, even if it is 119 years after Confederation, francophone members of this assembly and the francophone community in Ontario now have the right to express themselves and be heard in one of our two official languages, and that is a great accomplishment.

I gather that the renovations to the sound system have had the effect of rendering our remarks unintelligible and inaudible to the members of the press gallery.

An hon. member: Another improvement.

Mr. McClellan: It is another major improvement. I gather that engineers are busy trying to turn the sound back on for the members of the press even as I speak.

Finally, I continue to be amazed at the way we do business in this assembly. We tore the entire chamber apart and still failed to complete the project. I gather at our next interval we will have the opportunity to tear the assembly apart again to replace the sound system and add a fourth tier. Maybe one of these times we will get it right.

IDEA CORP.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I would like to report to the House on the management and winding down of the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. As members know, it came under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Development Corp. on June 30, 1986.

IDEA was established on October 30, 1981, by the previous government as a centrepiece of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development initiative. IDEA was a schedule 2 agency with a completely autonomous board of directors. That autonomy was maintained by this administration, a fact confirmed by its chairman, H. Ian Macdonald.

Soon after its inception, the IDEA Corp. ran into a number of serious problems. Members will be familiar with many of them: conflict with the private sector venture capital community; investments in inappropriate large-scale syndications; and questions about the location, style and accountability of the corporation. These problems were discussed in the press of the day. The then Minister of Industry and Trade openly questioned the cost-effectiveness of IDEA.

The current government was committed to making changes at IDEA. The special adviser to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) conducted an extensive review of the role and mandate of the IDEA Corp. This review did not assess or intervene with specific investments.

After detailed analysis, a decision was made to wind down the corporation. This was announced by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology on February 19, 1986, with the full termination date scheduled on June 30, when the Ontario Development Corp. assumed direct responsibility for the assets.

The IDEA wind-down presented a complex and difficult task. Through the process, we stuck to these key principles:

The corporation continued to deal in good faith with projects under way prior to the wind-down announcement. No new projects were accepted.

The board of the corporation, largely as appointed by the previous government, continued to act autonomously to accept full responsibility for investment decisions.

The government sought to prepare the way for smooth and effective management of the remaining IDEA assets.

In my view, the IDEA Corp. was an unfortunate experience for the people of Ontario. The resources it expended were theirs and the costs it incurred came from their pockets. Effectively managing what is left and efficiently disposing of existing assets have been the government's strategy since assuming direct responsibility on June 30, 1986.

When the Ontario Development Corp. took over the assets, it removed most of the IDEA directors from the invested companies and replaced them. It began to supervise invested companies much more closely and began to develop a strategy for dealing with the remaining assets and investments.

For example, IDEA's largest single investment was in a syndicate that displayed insufficient progress in making investments and incurred the displeasure of many of its unit holders.

A group of investors, including and coordinated by ODC, obtained major changes to both the management and financing of the syndicate. These changes produced an amended syndication, which should be able to generate positive returns at no further cost to the Treasury and free up $6 million in public funds.

ODC has also facilitated the discussions of Wyda Systems by the standing committee on public accounts. The corporation managed a team of consultants who audited the company and, through its counsel, has assisted the committee in all requests made of it.

Questions have been raised about IDEA's investment in a company called Graham Software. The first IDEA investment in this company was made on September 18, 1985, and rose to $5 million in March 1986. The company is currently winding up its affairs and ODC does not expect much, if any, recovery from the investment.

To address these and other concerns regarding IDEA investments, I have asked Jack Bidden to initiate a thorough and complete review of the entire IDEA portfolio. As many members are aware, Mr. Bidden is the past chairman of the Ontario Inflation Restraint Board and a retired partner with the accounting firm of Clarkson Gordon.

Mr. Biddell's review will: (1) identify any current or past problems in the IDEA portfolio as it was turned over to the ODC on June 30, 1986; (2) provide a full review of all existing investments to determine whether there is sufficient chance of future benefit to warrant continued support; (3) identify current investments requiring additional financial and other support; and (4) assist in the development of a strategy for the disposition of the remaining IDEA assets.

I have indicated to Mr. Bidden that his report should be completed as quickly as possible. The report will be made public, excepting commercially confidential information that will impair the performance of specific firms. Mr. Bidden will be provided with appropriate funding to engage outside consultants, counsel and auditors as required.

Mr. Gillies: With regard to the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I want to say that so far this session the minister gets the understatement of the year award for saying the IDEA Corp. was an unfortunate experience for the people of Ontario. The minister's and his officials' mismanagement of the IDEA Corp. will prove to be a major embarrassment for this government before this session is over.

The impetus for this so-called inquiry, which will be undertaken by the government, came from interventions by the opposition parties and from nowhere else. When I first raised these issues on June 10, the Premier, as is always his wont, stood in the House and assured all and sundry that everything was just fine; there was nothing there.

Mr. Grossman: Squeaky clean.

Mr. Gillies: I believe the term used by the Premier was "squeaky clean." On June 10, I raised in this House two of the largest investments made by IDEA Corp. since this government took office: the $5 million in Graham Software and the $3.5 million in Wyda Systems. As we have come to see, there was something wrong in each of those cases. The $5 million lent to Graham Software, apparently with insufficient research and shepherding undertaken by the ministry, now will be lost to the people of Ontario. The $3.5 million that was given to Wyda Systems now is in question.

During the standing committee on public accounts discussions on the Caplan inquiry this summer, it became clear that the money put out by IDEA by way of investments was intended to be for new research and development in high technology industry. It has become apparent that the $3.5 million given to Wyda was in fact used to retire old debt and not to facilitate new research and development. Now we see Graham Software's $5 million going down the tube, and we have to wonder what will become of the other $20 million given out by the government through this fund.

I remind the minister that it is all very well to note that IDEA has been in place since October 30, 1981, but 60 per cent of that money has been expended since this government took office. It is all very well for the minister to say no new projects were entertained since the new government took office, but I remind the minister, as also came out in the course of the Caplan affair, that as a result of interventions which may or may not have been political, we saw the proposed investment in Wyda go from $1 million to $3.5 million.

This is also a red-letter day -- no pun intended to the government -- in that this is the day the government informed us by way of Orders and Notices that it would be tabling all the computer contracts let by this government since it took office. As I always believe, in good faith, what the government and the Premier tell me, I assume that at the end of question period we will see tabled all the computer contracts of this government, and I thank the government House leader for having them with him.

The proposed inquiry by Mr. Bidden leaves us a little cold. It appears to be an attempt to recoup political losses as opposed to recouping the money. It is all very well to cut political losses, but where are the millions of dollars being lost to the taxpayers of this province because of the government's ineptitude in handling it?

Perhaps the good news is not contained in the minister' statement. The good news, owing to the initiative of this party -- and I understand at this point it is supported by the New Democratic Party -- is that the opposition parties will be forcing this whole matter into the standing committee on public accounts. I assure the minister we will have a full and unvarnished examination of his horrendous mishandling of this fund.

Mr. Philip: I would like to respond to the statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology regarding the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. We have here a defensive mechanism by the government that has clearly mismanaged the IDEA Corp. It is interesting that the minister has decided to spend money to investigate what the standing committee on public accounts has undertaken to investigate in any case.

It is also interesting that the minister did not mention that the major investment of the IDEA Corp. was made after this government had made a policy decision to phase out and do away with the IDEA Corp. Nor did the minister tell the House about the major funds that were invested, not in new research but to pay off old debts. That is what the public accounts committee will investigate; and the minister made no mention of that in his statement.

The Blake, Cassels and Graydon study, which was paid for by the public purse at the initiation of this government to cover its tracks once again on its own mismanagement, clearly showed that the public accounts committee is much better able to do the kind of research and turn out a comprehensive report than the so-called independent people who are hired by this government. This is clearly a political move by the government to cover its coattails, which are clearly marked with mismanagement of this and other corporations.

TRADE MISSION

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would like to take this opportunity to report to the members of the House on our province's trade, investment and joint venture mission --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been informed by one member that copies have not been received. Is that correct?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Are copies available? I understand that copies are on their way.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is worth waiting for. If I may start again, I would like to take this opportunity to report to the members of the House on our province's trade, investment and joint venture mission to Japan, Korea and the People's Republic of China.

Certainly, all in this House are aware of the importance of the Asia Pacific region, the fastest-growing market in the world.

C'est dans cette région du globe que les mutations économiques les plus importantes auront lieu au cours des prochaines années. Il semble déjà acquis qu'une province comme la nôtre, dont la prospérité est liée au commerce international, doive participer au changement.

Since the dawn of this decade, the value of world trade crossing the Pacific has outpaced the value of trade crossing the Atlantic. In 1985, the Asia Pacific nations imported more than $497 billion worth of goods. Ontario enjoyed only a 0.3 per cent share of the market.

We have tremendous opportunities for growth. We must invest the efforts necessary to seize them. This is a long-term goal that requires a long-term commitment. Our trade mission was but a beginning -- a solid beginning. It has already demonstrated potential for increased trade, investment, jobs and technology transfer in both directions.

The government would like to express its appreciation to all who helped take this initial step, particularly the 46 business and labour leaders who demonstrated their recognition of the long-term benefits the mission can yield for the people of Ontario.

I would also like to thank my colleagues from both opposition parties who joined in the delegation. On a personal note, I am only sorry my friend the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) could not join us. He was involved in this from the inception, and I am hoping he will have an opportunity to visit the Orient, representing the government, particularly in Jiangsu province, where he is known and respected.

The calibre of the delegation and the depth of commitment displayed were largely responsible for the positive response we received from our hosts. The high regard in which our province is held is reflected in the fact that, for the first time, an Ontario delegation was accorded official status in all three countries.

Le niveau officiel des discussions aura donc permis à l'Ontario un échange de vues des plus profitables, sans lequel les négociations commerciales seraient quelquefois difficiles, sinon impossibles.

I found tremendous reason for encouragement about Ontario's trade and investment prospects, especially in extensive meetings with the heads of government of the three countries and meetings with senior cabinet ministers.

The positive atmosphere of those talks was echoed in our meetings with the senior members of the Keidanren, Japan's high-level business federation; the Kanao mission, which is investigating trade and investment opportunities in Canada; China International Trust and Investment Corp. ; the Federation of Korean Industries; and top executives of a variety of companies, including Toyota, Suzuki, Honda, Mitsubishi and many others.

The degree of interest in economic ties with Ontario was also demonstrated by the success of the September 30 seminar on trade and investment in Ontario, organized by my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil). Close to 400 leading Japanese business executives took part.

I was especially glad to have the opportunity to introduce our new agent general in Tokyo, Tim Armstrong, known to all members of the House; and Ray McCague, known to some members of the House, who will serve as senior representative in MITT's new office in Seoul, Korea.

In China, we finalized the official twinning of Ontario and Jiangsu province and paid Ontario's first official visit to the Jiangsu-Ontario Technology Centre.

While these efforts are directed towards long-term development, I am pleased to be able to report some immediate results as well.

In terms of trade and joint ventures with China, two fields in which we have seen particular signs of progress are those of oil exploration and hydroelectric power. In Nanjing, I had the pleasure of announcing an agreement that will see Phoenix Goephysics Ltd. of Markham provide the technology to assist in the search for new oil supplies in China. Further, it was announced that Ontario Hydro will be participating in a $5.5-million technical study of power potential and transmission in south China.

In Tokyo, we were delighted with the signing of joint venture agreements between Tridon International and Nichirin Rubber and between Magna International and Fuji Tool and Die, agreements that will involve combined capital investments of $9 million and the creation of 300 jobs.

We were also extremely pleased to announce a joint project by TRW Canada Ltd. and Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. to build a new auto plant in Ontario, a venture that is expected to create 128 new jobs by 1989. As well, Yazaki Sogyo announced it will build a plant in Barrie to produce speedometers.

Given the vital role the auto industry plays in Ontario's economy, among the most important aspects of the mission were the meetings with the presidents of Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motors and officials of Nissan Motor Co. With Toyota, we finalized an agreement that will see the company spend up to $120 million a year on Canadian-made parts for its new Cambridge plant by the mid-1990s. Perhaps of even greater long-term significance was Toyota's commitment to meet auto pact status of 60 per cent Canadian content as quickly as feasible. I also raised this matter with the president of Honda Motors and hope to be able to report similar progress in the coming months.

I have every reason to expect that Ontario will soon see further benefits from this co-operative effort between government and private sector.

Plus que jamais, le temps, la patience sont des vertus nécessaires à la réussite d'une telle entreprise. Mais la qualité de vie autant que la meilleure compréhension des peuples en valent la peine.

However, as we have said on several occasions, the results of this trade, investment and joint venture mission cannot be measured in one month or one quarter. I believe all Ontarians can take pride in what we have together sown in the past few days. I am very confident, no matter which way one looks at it, right side up or upside down, we will be able to take great joy from the benefits that will come to this province in the years to come.

Mr. Brandt: I have a very brief response to the Premier with respect to the trade mission to the Far East. First, I would like to congratulate the Premier for commenting on the involvement of my colleague the member for Muskoka, who initiated many of the contacts in the Far East with respect to China and, going back even further, to Japan and other countries there that now are doing a considerable amount of trade with Ontario. That kind of recognition is certainly accepted by members on this side of the House, and I am sure by members on all sides of the House, as being a very positive contribution towards the increase in trade we are now realizing with those countries.

In addition, I want to comment on the tremendous assistance that was given to the entire delegation by the Canadian embassy. I am sure this was an oversight in the Premier's address. It was very important.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member's time has expired.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: My point arises from the Premier's campaign of disinformation with respect to conflict of interest.

On July 2, 1986, in Hansard at page 2045, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said as follows: "I wish to make it clear at the outset that I have the utmost confidence in the ministers of my government. I appreciate their efforts to adhere to the guidelines that have been in place since 1972, but at the same time I must acknowledge that the rules and the system we thought worked well in the past may not be good enough today."

The Premier, in the statement of July 2, 1986, makes reference often to the 1972 guidelines and talks about ministers adhering to the 1972 guidelines, but nowhere in that statement does the Premier come clean and tell the people that he secretly weakened the guidelines in 1985 and issued a new set in September 1985.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe the member rose on a point of privilege. I cannot see where that is a point of privilege; it is certainly a point of information that he wanted to place before the House. I cannot accept it as a point of privilege.

14:52

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Grossman: I would like to welcome all members back to the assembly; those who come from the Far East and those who come from the far north. It is a shame we had to spend $200,000 to get one of them back, but we are delighted to have them all here.

I should like to join the rest of the members of the House in welcoming the new Clerk.

JOBS IN AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. While the minister was overseas in the Far East trying to lure more investment to Ontario, something very distressing was happening. General Motors in Oshawa, which is in the midst of a major expansion, was not hiring all its people from Ontario or even Canada. No, it was advertising overseas; it was advertising in the London, England, Daily Mirror for tool and die makers for the GM plant in Oshawa. They were offering excellent wage and benefit packages and relocation assistance as well. Is the minister aware of this, and what is his opinion with regard to it?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: No, I am not aware of the particular advertisement the member mentions. I would be very pleased to have a copy of it and to look into it. Perhaps if the previous government had done a better job in the education field we would not be faced with this problem.

Mr. Grossman: The minister may indeed be right, but he has also had 16 or 17 months, together with his colleagues, the Futures program, the high-technology fund and Lord knows all sorts of announcements, to start to deal with this problem. The minister rises today to tell us that he does not even know about it.

Specifically, given the fact that American Motors (Canada) went out of its way to offer jobs to people in northern Ontario who are not participating in the economic recovery, will he today give an assurance to the House that he will call General Motors, tell it that these advertisements are inappropriate and that it must hire all of its people in Canada?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I would be very pleased to receive a copy of that particular ad, as I mentioned. As a free enterpriser myself, I am not in the habit of telling companies what they must or must not do. The Leader of the Opposition should also be aware that the company he is running down has just spent more than $2 billion on an investment in Oshawa, providing many jobs for the future for the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: If the minister does not intend to call up General Motors of Canada and tell them that they should be hiring in Canada, and only in Canada, then he will have to answer for that.

I want to draw something to his attention. The president of General Motors of Canada is George Peapples. George Peapples is one of the members of the Premier's Council, appointed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), to help give out money for high-tech reconstruction in Ontario.

My question to the minister is a simple one. Will he call up Mr. Peapples, a member of the Premier's own committee set up to attract jobs and investment to Ontario, and ask him whether he would mind hiring in Ontario or resigning from the Premier's Council, which is supposed to create jobs for Ontarians?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Peapples has made a great contribution to the Premier's Council and will continue to do so. As I mentioned, if the previous government had done a better job of training people, we would not have the problems that we do now.

RETIREMENT OF CLERK

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. Apparently, on the Premier's return this morning, he did what we are getting used to him doing; that is, quickly running away from those issues which his advisers tell him may begin to cling on to him.

In this regard, I would like to raise the question of Rodney Lewis. From reports over the weekend, it appears that the Premier called Mr. Lewis in and had a chat with him, shall we say, about his retirement -- a chat that Douglas Fisher would report, attributing this to the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) -- that would indicate the Premier's intentions were to make sure Mr. Lewis was gone tomorrow if he formed the government. Could the Premier perhaps take a moment or two and describe to the House the meeting he had in his office with Mr. Lewis?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It was a nice meeting. I am sorry the member was not there; he would have enjoyed it. Mr. Lewis came into my office, and we discussed the House and recognized that he had served here for many years. I said, "Hello, Mr. Lewis," whose name, as the member knows, is not Rodney; it is Roderick. We had a very nice chat. I said that, in my opinion, it was time for changes in the House and it was our judgement, if there was a consensus among the members of the House, that after having served for many years and now being 75 years old, it was time for him to retire. He took my advice on that particular matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I should correct the record, Mr. Speaker. If the Premier was reporting a consensus of this House that it is worth $2 million to the taxpayers of Ontario to get a new Clerk, he was not speaking for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

After this meeting in the Premier's office what the Premier said and what actually happened we will find out later when Mr. Lewis appears before a committee -- did the Premier, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), the then Chairman of Management Board or the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) get a legal opinion from any source indicating what Mr. Lewis's entitlement in law was in terms of severance pay?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. I never propose to speak for the Progressive Conservative Party. No one has any idea what the Progressive Conservative Party thinks about anything. The Leader of the Opposition does not even speak for the Progressive Conservative Party, and that is one of the problems at present. I gather the Leader of the Opposition's view was that Mr. Lewis should continue on for ever, for another 30 or 40 years, but it was our view that we should make the appropriate arrangements for him to leave.

The answer is that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has given a legal opinion on this matter.

15:00

Mr. Grossman: If the Premier is not clear what the Progressive Conservative Party stands for on some other issues, let him be clear about this one. We believe the taxpayers of this province would be better off having Mr. Lewis continue as Clerk of the Legislature than paying him $2 million because of the Premier's sloppy and inept handling of his retirement.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: If the Attorney General has rendered, as the Premier stated a moment ago, an opinion with regard to Mr. Lewis's entitlement in terms of severance pay, will the Premier be kind enough to table that legal opinion with us before the end of the day?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want the member to know very clearly where we stand. We do not believe in entitlement for life. In 1974, the Conservative government passed a law bringing in some kind of entitlement. We do not agree with that. We have a very different approach. We believe the Clerk should be a servant of the House, not of a particular party, and we have changed things very substantially and we do not apologize for that.

With respect to the legal opinion, I recommend that the member ask the Attorney General what the opinion is. The Attorney General will be very happy to share it with the member.

Mr. Rae: I want to ask the Premier whether he can explain why the government in this day and age authorized the following payments, as I understand them, to Mr. Lewis: a so-called attendance gratuity of $64,712; vacation pay of $49,276; benefits of $600; an annuity worth $220,000; a gratuity of $31,500 in addition to that; plus the use of a secretary, furniture and a chauffeur.

I wonder whether the Premier can explain why that quite extraordinary level of expenditure for one individual, who has served the House and is now 75 years old, was authorized. Can he give us his personal assurance that the supplementary estimates which will authorize this expenditure will be called by the government as soon as possible so the House will have an opportunity to express its view with respect to this incredible spending of public money?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer to the Treasurer to address specifically those questions the member raises.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member has indicated a list of expenditures which can be reviewed by any committee, including those dealing with the estimates. I assure the members of the House that the moneys available and to be paid to the Clerk under the present agreement simply maintain his salary, which was established under the Legislative Assembly Act of 1974 by the previous administration. The associated orders in council gave him lifetime entitlement to that money. I also think it is too much money, but that is what he is entitled to.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer did not answer my question with respect to the calling of the supplementary estimates.

Injured workers were demonstrating outside the House today with respect to their pensions and their economic condition. I wonder how the Treasurer feels about this incredible giveaway to one individual by the government of this province, which is speaking allegedly on behalf of the people of this province, at the same time as 2,000 of 313,000 workers in this province who have been laid off have in fact received severance pay? I wonder what kind of a statement he thinks the Liberal government is making to injured workers, to workers who have been laid off and to other people who are facing difficult circumstances when it gives this kind of $2-million payout to one individual? How does he think that reads with the population of Ontario? How does he think they feel about that kind of thing?

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must inform all our visitors in the galleries that the standing orders state that individuals in the gallery must refrain from demonstration of any kind; otherwise, they will have to leave the gallery.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The estimates of the assembly will be called in the usual order. This is established by agreement among the House leaders. I do not think there has ever been any question the honourable member can point to about any representative of the government standing in the way of the calling of estimates. That comes in the usual order, and the member will be free to say and do whatever he likes in that connection.

As to his more rhetorical question, I wish more money were available for injured workmen. I have already said I feel the money payable to the Clerk is too large, but it is that which is required under the law passed by the Legislature. If the former Clerk had been prepared to vacate his office and to submit his resignation for some amount of money less than that, we would have been very glad to have accommodated him, but he indicated he was not. I can assure the member I wanted to fulfil the requirements of the law. I also wanted to be sure that the office available to the new Clerk, who for the first time was picked by a committee of the Legislature independently of the government, was going to be freely available to him without any embarrassment and without any problems at all so that he could take up his new duties without any impediment whatsoever.

Mr. Rae: The government was faced with a difficult situation and it panicked, but it panicked in response to one individual, who I think one can say was well established. Would it were the case that it would respond in the same way when other individuals insist on their rights.

In that regard, I would like to ask the Treasurer why the government continues to refuse to provide indexing of pensions for those who are in receipt of private pensions? The Treasurer will know full well that Mr. Lewis's original pension entitlement was $38,400, which was 42 per cent of his 1986-87 pay. It was enriched to provide a pension of $60,000 plus the $31,500 per annum. No other employees receive a pension equal to 100 per cent of their pre-retirement income. His colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) has refused systematically to give that assurance. How does he feel about pensioners whose incomes have declined by 50 per cent since Mr. Lewis reached the age of 65?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not like it at all. I can be frank about that. I must point out to the member that as far as we are concerned and as far as any person might be concerned who reads the statute, the former Clerk is entitled to a continuation of his job for as long as he lives or as long as he can perform the job. As far as we were concerned, we wanted to create a vacancy and we have done so. These matters are still under review.

Mr. Rae: It is the most extraordinary kind of mismanagement. No other employee in Ontario has received that kind of platinum handshake.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: It sends out a terrible message to the people of this province, one that will stick with the Liberal government for a long time to come.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a new question?

Mr. Rae: It is a new definition of pay equity.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: My next question for the Premier has to do with rent review and Bill 51. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) has made what I think most of us would consider to be an extraordinary statement, that unless everything goes the government's way in committee it is going to pull the bill. Is the Premier prepared to accept the will of the Legislature with respect to amendments to Bill 51 that will make good on the agreement he signed in May and June 1985, and will ensure fair rent control for all the tenants in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to the honourable leader is the following: that bill is unique in the history of this province. We lived in a very polarized system where landlords were shouting at tenants and tenants were shouting at landlords. There was a lot of very simple wisdom being peddled around the province. There was polarization over the past 10 years. There was a sense of no meeting of the minds. The minister pulled together people from the tenants' movement as well as landlords, who developed a consensus that would protect tenants and at the same time, we believe, stimulate the building of new supply on the market.

15:10

I know there are extremists on both sides who do not believe that. I know there are certain people who have a certain political interest in taking the extreme point on almost everything. But this consensus is unique. As members know, the bill is fragile in the sense that a number of things are being weighed off one against another. There is no perfect solution to the problems we face, but most people admit we are facing a major problem in the province in that regard. This is seen by thoughtful, moderate observers to be a solution that protects both sides.

Let us not take the extreme view. Let us take the reasonable view. Let us not destroy the integrity of that bill and let us not put simple partisan gain in the short term against a program that is going to both protect tenants and supply affordable housing in the future. That is what we are trying to do. We have an obligation.

Mr. Rae: I do not think I heard an answer to my question. What the Premier seems to be saying is that a private arrangement cooked up behind Liberal closed doors between representatives appointed by them and for them is going to take precedence over a consensus of this Legislature. A more anti-democratic statement by the Premier I cannot imagine.

Can the Premier give us his assurance that a consensus of this House will prevail and that we will be able, democratically, to improve and strengthen a bill to which the government itself has introduced more than 100 amendments and whose improvement is seen by most tenants and most people who have been watching the bill as essential for their protection, the protection the Liberal Party ran on in the last election, signed in the accord and is now reneging on in Bill 51?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We will support every move that improves the bill. The member's opinion of improving the bill may differ from mine. Sometimes in his insularity he takes a single-minded view of these situations.

We have achieved a balance in the situation. We are anxious to improve the bill in any way anybody has any ideas for, but the member must respect what is happening in that bill and the principles of that bill. As long as those principles are held intact, obviously we will accept the wisdom of this Legislature, but we must remember what that bill is trying to achieve.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind all members that they are just wasting their own time.

Mr. Rae: May I take it from what the Premier has said that if this House approves an amendment which states quite clearly that there will be a four per cent rental guideline for all the tenants in this province, that will become the law in this province and the government will not withdraw the bill or kill the bill, as the Minister of Housing has said he would do?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am trying to persuade my honourable friend that he has to respect the integrity of that bill and stop taking such a simple-minded historical view of this situation. Let us not introduce the old polemics that have been hanging around for the last 10 years. Some very thoughtful spokesmen from the tenants' movement, who do not happen to be lackeys of ours and who happen to be respected spokesmen, think the principles contained in that bill are extremely worth while and moderate.

If the member wants to introduce the same old rhetoric of 10 years ago into this debate, then my honourable friend is moving us backward, not forward. Come into the 1986s. Start working on a bill that has been constructed by a lot of thoughtful people. If the member opposite can improve it, fine; but he has to respect that we are trying to achieve a number of purposes with that bill, and most thoughtful observers think it has been well done.

RETIREMENT OF CLERK

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier stated here earlier this afternoon that the job of the former Clerk, Mr. Lewis, was his for life, or was his until he could be removed when he no longer could do the job. Is the Premier leading us to believe that Mr. Lewis could no longer do the job as Clerk?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I wish my honourable friend would not try to drag me into a discussion of personalities. We could have brought a resolution to have him removed and discussed the whole situation, but it was the view of the government and certain members opposite that it was time for a change in the House. The member may not take that view, but a number of others did. That is why we did what we did.

The member cannot understand that there are a great many changes going on in this House. Having French translation in the Legislature or changing the rules would never have happened under his party. The member can stand up and say anything he wants at the beginning of the legislative period. That is new to the House. He does not yet understand the change that has overtaken the Legislature: We have to be in the forefront of that change, not lagging behind. It was our view -- and again, I do not want to discuss personalities -- that it was a change that was important to the modernization of the Legislature.

Mr. Eves: The question was whether or not the Premier and the government felt the former Clerk could have continued in his capacity as Clerk of the Legislature. He has not answered the question.

The Premier is telling us that the former Clerk was entitled to the money for the rest of his life. Is he telling us that the package the Liberal members of the Board of Internal Economy approved last week is what Mr. Lewis would have received for the rest of his life?

The Premier still has not answered whether or not Mr. Lewis could have continued in his capacity as Clerk.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I answered the question very clearly. He served the Legislature for a long time. He served it well, but it was time for a change. We thought we had to move on. I am sure the member opposite has got it through his head that the people of Ontario wanted change.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: My question is of the Minister of Financial Institutions. I am sure he is aware that the just-published Statistics Canada figures show that casualty and property insurers of Canada had net profits of $292 million during the second quarter of 1986.

Given that that is two and a half times last year's figure and 12 per cent higher than ever before recorded for that quarter, will the minister admit, first, that the insurance companies are doing exceedingly well at the expense of the public of Ontario and, second, that the time has come to halt any further increases in auto and liability insurance rates?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I appreciate the member's comments, but he should know that talking about profit in isolation means nothing. He has to talk about return on investment. I am not trying to apologize for the insurance companies, but the member should know that in automobile insurance, from the latest figures available for 1985, for every dollar of premium that was taken in on automobile insurance, $1.31 was paid out in claims.

Mr. Swart: I am not talking about profits in isolation; the $292-million figure is after they paid all their taxes. Given his intransigence in even considering the efficient and low-cost public auto insurance systems in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and given the huge profits of the insurance companies, will the minister at least proclaim a new section 371 of the Insurance Act, which gives his ministry the power to hold or adjust rates that are excessive, discriminatory or unreasonable?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That provision has been on the books for more than 50 years; not one government has seen fit to implement it. Alberta has such a plan. If that plan were in effect in Ontario, during the past five years the people of Ontario would have paid from eight per cent to 39 per cent more than they pay now.

15:20

VISA REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Callahan: In the beautiful city of Brampton we have a large number of Portuguese residents who are excellent residents of the community. It has come to my attention that Ottawa apparently has taken certain steps to require visas for these people. I would like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. I would like to inquire whether such steps taken by the federal Minister of State for Immigration were taken with any consultation with this government.

Hon. Ms. Munro: On July 16, we communicated with the minister, making it very clear that we were distressed about the rather discriminatory acts being taken with this group of citizens and visitors. We told the minister that we felt families were experiencing a good deal of hardship, and we asked for his consideration and assurance not only that the refugee system would include consideration for the Portuguese community but also that legitimate visitors from Portugal would be treated in the correct fashion. I realize the visa system is in place, and the minister has taken our letter into account.

Mr. Callahan: I think it demonstrates what the official opposition thinks of the Portuguese people in my community when a member sends something such as this over.

It is a serious question for my community. I would like to know what the federal minister has done in terms of dealing with a retraction or change of these visa requirements.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear a thing.

Hon. Ms. Munro: The federal minister appears to have done little to take into account the hardships being imposed on the Portuguese community and on visitors. We continue to impress on him the importance of treating visitors in a very compassionate way. My colleague the Minister without Portfolio the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) met with members from the Portuguese community on the weekend to say that he was also making representation.

We will continue to press the federal government to pay attention to this act of discrimination. In addition, we will also be working with the federal minister to make sure that the fast-track system for refugees in general is implemented on time in April 1987.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Premier. It appears that the concept of disclosure of all assets and properties is a very difficult one for the ministers to grasp. The transition lawyer, Mary Eberts, Blenus Wright, and the law firm of Blake, Cassels and Graydon, were all unable to get a number of the ministers to disclose their assets voluntarily. These things came to light only when John Black Aird did his investigation.

Can the Premier explain to this House whether the ministers are so inept that they did not realize they had to disclose these assets, or heaven forbid, were any of them deliberately trying to keep these things from coming to light?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am glad to see my honourable friend quoting John Black Aird after he said such nasty things about him the day before his report came out. Is he now relying on him for text?

This whole thing has to be put in context. As he knows, one of the problems with the guidelines was the lack of certainty. Mr. Wright applied the standards he had applied to previous governments. I will give an example. There were certain things that he did not think had to be declared. Blake, Cassels had a different view of what should be declared and what should not be declared, as did Mr. Aird. There were three different views of the same situation. That speaks to the fundamental problems of the lack of clarity in the guidelines.

Mr. Gillies: I suggest to the Premier that is simply not the case. He weakened the guidelines. Clearly, they were not being enforced as rigidly as they were under the old government and they still could not comply.

Does the Premier want us to assume that it was an honest mistake that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) failed to disclose that he had fishing properties, that it was an honest mistake that the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) failed to disclose holdings in public companies and that it was just a series of honest mistakes that his Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) failed to disclose interests in 28 partnerships and joint ventures?

Will the Premier please assure the House that these were honest mistakes, and will he further assure us that none of these interests in which his ministers participated have done business with the government of Ontario in the past 15 months?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I refer the member to the Aird report, which he quoted at the beginning of his remarks. I am sure he has read that very carefully and has the benefit of Mr. Aird's opinion on that matter. I cannot take it any farther than that.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It deals with the latest tactic of the doctors to get around the ban on extra billing.

I would like to read to the minister two quotes from statements that have been sent by doctors to patients. One is from the Yorkview Medical Centre. It says, "If you are experiencing financial difficulty, please feel free to discuss this situation with our business manager." The other one is from Dr. James Paupst. One of the paragraphs says, "Except for those who have spoken to me and requested participation in this plan, the elderly, the clergy, pensioners and young adults will be excluded."

Is the minister prepared to put a stop to this nonsense of the doctors, which is simply a method to line their pockets with more money and to break Bill 94?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I would think it would be fair for the member to share the statements in their entirety with me. Like him, I have several problems with respect to the levies that have been issued for what are called uninsured services by some. I would be pleased to have those statements. I will check into them at length and reply to the member.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Since he expressed such an interest in this matter back in July, and then met with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and was quoted in the newspapers as saying later that "he expected the college would soon issue a pretty plain statement that there should be no charges deterring people from seeking doctors' care," is the minister aware that as of 1:50 this afternoon, the college of physicians and surgeons has sent nothing to the doctors of this province stating what he promised they would in July? In fact, it has not even met.

Hon. Mr. Elston: From a formal standpoint, the honourable gentleman is right, although the message has been given through a number of areas that have expressed the concern not only of the college but also of this minister. Also, from talking to the president of the Ontario Medical Association and reviewing correspondence he has sent to the medical profession, I can say the association likewise has expressed concerns about the charges.

I have a copy of the president's letter dated October 7, which says: "Many members continue to charge patients directly and appropriately for uninsured services. However, the press is making us aware of a small number of members who are somewhat innovative in their definition of uninsured services and apparently exorbitant in their fees." He goes on to remind all members that the guidelines from the Ontario health insurance plan and the college of physicians and surgeons are readily available.

The member will know there is co-operation among the minister, the college and the association to deal with this situation. I look forward to receiving his examples so I can review them. I remain quite concerned about the activity he has reported to us.

FOREST MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

Mr. Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. On January 28, I asked the minister whether he had had any discussions with the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), who was then the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, with regard to the Hearst forest management agreement. He told this House he would take the question as notice and get back to us. Is he prepared to answer that question now, nearly eight months later?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course I will respond to the question. I could have responded to it at the time, but I wanted to be absolutely sure of the record. There was not any discussion at any time with Mr. Fontaine about the FMA.

15:30

Mr. Runciman: That is rather mysterious in the light of a memo I have with me today to the minister's administrative assistant. The memo is dated December 18, 1985, more than a month before my question, and is with regard to specific information on United Sawmill, Hearst forest management and Golden Tiger Mining Exploration.

The interesting point is that I never asked about Golden Tiger Mining Exploration. The issue was never raised in the House until July 1986. Why was the minister's office inquiring about Golden Tiger fully seven months before my colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) made the connection to the member for Cochrane North in this House?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: My ministry or my people never asked that question. The question was raised by one of the people from one of the opposition parties with one of my people. I said, "Give them any information they ask for," and that is precisely what happened.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will just wait.

APPOINTMENT OF REEVE

Mr. Laughren: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and concerns his decision to appoint the reeve of the community of Chapleau rather than allowing an election to occur, which is what the community wished to have happen. Despite the fact that there was a unanimous resolution by council to have an election to replace the reeve, could the minister tell us why he decided to appoint a reeve, completely contrary to the wishes of the council?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to advise my honourable friend that for a number of weeks the council in Chapleau, if I am not mistaken, could not resolve the situation at five or six council meetings and private meetings. Everybody wanted to run for the reeve's job, and it would have created two or three vacancies on council. I acted according to section 45 of the Municipal Act, which gives power to the minister to appoint a reeve in that case, and that is exactly what I did.

Mr. Laughren: Unfortunately, I know what the minister did. What I am concerned about is the fact that he completely ignored the wishes of that council. Will the minister reconsider his decision and put on hold the appointment of Mr. Russell as reeve until he has heard in person from a delegation from the community of Chapleau?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I will not reconsider. It is the privilege of the minister and the ministry to appoint councillors or reeves. This has happened in 135 municipalities since the last municipal election. Nobody has chosen to go the election way. It is the privilege of the ministry and the minister, and I will not renege. The council had a choice to appoint the councillor when this vacancy was created. I will not retract.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Baetz: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the month-long strike by the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton and now the strike at the Robert Smart Centre for adolescents and the likelihood of a strike at the Ottawa and District Association for the Mentally Retarded, it is obvious the children's services in Ottawa-Carleton are in a state of crisis, simply awaiting a disaster to happen.

In view of the fact that the management in all these agencies simply cannot meet even the very modest requests made by the workers because of inadequate funding from the ministry, how can the minister continue to justify his month-long, stubborn stand to refuse in any way, shape or form to intervene in this very serious labour problem?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are 1,800 transfer payment agencies in this province. Does my honourable friend suggest that I negotiate with each one of those 1,800? If he does not, where would he draw the line? Does my honourable friend also suggest that I go into the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton or any other children's aid society in this province and start dictating to them line by line how they are going to operate their budget? I think not.

I have made it very clear that there are independent, autonomous boards across this province operating those agencies. They make those decisions on the basis of the transfer payment funds they get from our ministry and from the municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr. Baetz: I would simply like to remind the minister that he is ultimately responsible for services to children in this province and he cannot duck that responsibility. Nobody has to ask the minister to come in to dictate terms.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your supplementary?

Mr. Baetz: We simply ask him to sit down with the two sides and try to find some solution. Because of this tremendous crisis, how long is the minister going to diddle and daddle around? When is he going to come to Ottawa and at least try to bring the two sides together?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member himself has a background in the social services field. He well knows that the responsibility of this ministry and this minister is to see to it that the mandated services are delivered and delivered effectively. We are doing that during the strike, as well as outside of a strike. There is no crisis in this situation, to the extent that every single child in that area is receiving the services he requires; that is being delivered. When they are not, this minister and ministry will step in.

Mr. Baetz: One hundred children have been sent home from group care. Let us not --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of information. It is far from a point of order.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Grier: Last week, we had yet another report from the Canadian Public Health Association on the province's drinking water. On the one hand, it noted that there was a lack of information available on health effects of exposure to several compounds but, on the other hand, reassured us that the health implications of overall exposure were considered to be negligible and below provincial guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you understand we cannot have it both ways. I would like to ask the minister to assure this House that he is satisfied that no problem exists with drinking water that originates in the Great Lakes.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am pleased the member has asked this question, because it allows me to deal with the report, which I think provided some good news as well as some cautions. In the past, the manner of answering this question would be simply to say that all is fine, because the report that comes out essentially says the drinking water derived from the Great Lakes is fine, and the health authorities that were involved in this particular report indicated that was the case.

We are always striving to improve the quality of water available to all of us, whether it is for drinking purposes or for recreational purposes. That is why we have embarked upon an extremely ambitious program that has many facets to it and that deals with getting at the sources of the environmental problems that confront Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes. A large number of communities derive their drinking water from these particular locations and they want to be assured of that.

As I indicated, the report did provide some good news, but I do not think we should be satisfied until such time as we have perhaps reached a state of pristine water. We have to keep striving at all times to improve it. The way we do that is to reduce and eventually eliminate the contaminants that are going into those waterways.

15:40

Mrs. Grier: I had anticipated the answer. We are back to sources, but the minister knows that many of the sources of contamination of the Great Lakes are beyond his control. They are on the United States side of the Niagara River or they are in the lakes, from which he cannot control the effluent. The minister must be aware that every state in the US that borders the Great Lakes has legislated standards for drinking water. Why will the minister, in addition to controlling the sources, not put in place in this province legislation that will lay down standards for drinking water and a procedure by which the public can be notified when those standards are violated? Where is the drinking water strategy the minister promised this House over a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There are two or three things I would mention to the member in response to her very good question. First, she recognizes that we are talking about an international problem. That is why on many occasions we are in conversation and negotiation with our friends from the other side of the border. There is a gentleman here, who will be introduced more appropriately later, who is working very hard to improve the environment in a trans-boundary sense. We have that initiative under way.

In addition, the member cannot forget that our federal government is involved and deeply interested in these matters. She will know that a meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers just took place in Alberta. One of the topics that was discussed very thoroughly, and where there was a pretty good consensus, was the matter she has brought to our attention. I would say that across Canada we have a concern that is consistent about this matter and that, as a result of the consensus that has been reached at that meeting, we will see a national program with which we all will be pleased.

DETROIT INCINERATOR

Mr. Mancini: My question is also to the Minister of the Environment. The state of Michigan has given approval for Detroit to build an enormous garbage incinerator without extra pollution controls, despite clear warnings that this plant would increase the health risk in the Windsor and Essex county areas. What is the minister doing to ensure that Ontario residents, especially in the Windsor and Essex county areas, are going to be protected from this potential source of air pollution?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member may be aware that this matter has been before authorities in both the United States and Canada for some time. Initially, when we received word that this is the circumstance we face -- in other words, the construction of a garbage incinerator that did not have attached to it the best available technology, but only simply technology that some people felt was adequate -- I made direct representations to both the Governor's office and the Department of Natural Resources in the state of Michigan. In addition, the memorandum of understanding was invoked whereby the state of Michigan and Ontario may have matters of this kind placed on the agenda of the joint organization we have. I can assure the member that will be placed on the agenda once again.

As well, I can assure him that I have had discussions with the federal Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Tom McMillan, who has been making representations both through the Department of External Affairs and his colleague Joe Clark, and under his own auspices through the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.

In addition, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has directed a letter to the Governor of the state of Michigan outlining Ontario's opposition and expressing the desire to see the best and latest available technology placed on this incinerator.

Mr. Mancini: I understand, to my disappointment, that the US Environmental Protection Agency has ended its legal efforts to revoke Detroit's permit for the construction of this incinerator. Without the EPA legal action, what legal steps will the minister take to ensure that the pollution controls will be put on this incinerator? Will the minister try to make contact with other political officials in the state of Michigan who feel as we do, that this incinerator is an environmental hazard?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The answer to the question as it relates to the Environmental Protection Agency intervention in the courts is that it was most disappointing that the EPA had to withdraw its suit.

The suit was against the city of Detroit and Combustion Engineering. It withdrew the suit because it felt it did not have a strong position in court. Ontario had already announced that it would participate in this particular suit with a view to having the best available technology placed on that incinerator.

However, since the EPA has withdrawn and is looking for other avenues of action, we must then intervene in the court system in another way. At present, we are consulting with lawyers who have been somewhat successful in cases in the past, even on the other side of the border, to attempt to develop the best possible method of intervening in the US courts on this matter to ensure that the best available technology is placed on that incinerator. In addition, we will continue our political initiatives with our friends in the state of Michigan.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. He has raised the expectations of farmers in Ontario regarding financial assistance relating to the current weather crisis. When can we expect an announcement of new programs to assist our hard-pressed farmers?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That comment is completely erroneous. This minister travelled very extensively throughout this province to look at the damage that has been done to this point. At every occasion that I had to speak to the farmers or to the news media, I made it abundantly clear there would be no additional aid for farmers until there was a total assessment of the crops that underwent some type of damage, not only because of inclement weather conditions but also because of price.

I think the honourable member is well aware of what the corn producers and the soybean producers might expect by way of price because of the Food Security Act. After the assessment, we will see just what can be done in conjunction with the federal government's $1-billion deficiency payment, if one would call it that. The member's leader was going around the country saying that the federal government could not come up with any money because of its debt. I send a telex off to the federal government, and we get $1 billion --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Stevenson: I am not sure what that all meant, Mr. Speaker. For a guy who --

Mr. Grossman: The minister does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat? I will just wait. I hope you do not run out all the time, so some other members can ask questions.

Mr. Stevenson: It is difficult to ask a supplementary from that answer. For a guy who does not know enough to put on rubber boots --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did you want to try?

Mr. Stevenson: Yes. I certainly will try. If the minister checks the records, he will find that the rainfall since mid-August breaks records in parts of this province going back to the 1840s.

Mr. Grossman: It is in all the papers.

Mr. Stevenson: Those are unique situations and they certainly require unique and imaginative actions. When is the minister going to quit polishing his image and actually do something for the farmers in Ontario relating to the weather crisis they are facing right now in this province?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is interesting that the member should refer to the fact that I did not have rubber boots when I went out to ascertain the damage that was done. At least I went out. I do not think that member got outside of his riding to take a look at any part of the province where there was any type of damage done. That shows who has the farmers' interests at heart.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat. Are all the members finished now? No? Well, I will just wait a little longer.

15:50

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member did not provide any great news when he told me we had been having record rainfalls. I was well aware of that. Some considerable weeks ago we were able to ascertain that some of these crops were subject to considerable damage because they could not be harvested. I set up a working committee within my ministry, which has been monitoring the situation. They will continue to monitor the situation.

We are looking at existing programs. If the member wants to be constructive, he can remind the farmers of the programs we already have in existence that they can make use of: the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, the crop stabilization program, the tripartite stabilization program and the crop insurance program. As a matter of fact, as I travel around the province, I have many farmers telling me that this government has done more in 15 months than the previous government did in 10 years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Algoma. A short one, I hope.

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Are the minister and the provincial government aware that the Algoma Steel Corp. has given the Algoma Central Railway a very short time period in which to respond to its request for a decrease in the freight rate for sinter from the Algoma Ore division in Wawa to Sault Ste. Marie?

Can the minister report to the House on the discussions that the provincial government and the federal government have been involved in with these two companies to determine what can be done to preserve the jobs on the ACR and to protect tourism and accommodation jobs in Sault Ste. Marie? Is this government considering an Ontario Northland Transportation Commission takeover of the ACR?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not have at my fingertips all the information the honourable member requests. I have discussed to some extent with the federal Minister of Transport the provision of ongoing service to remote areas in particular and to areas of Ontario in general, as recently as a week and a half ago.

I do not have specific details as they relate to Algoma, but I am sure the member is very much aware of our ongoing interest in serving northern Ontario with every mode of transportation available and maintaining that kind of service to remote and otherwise economically in-need areas. He certainly has my assurance that kind of effort will continue.

I will attempt to get the details of the question as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The members, I know, are sorry to learn that is the extent of the allotted time for question period.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We have in the Speaker's gallery -- and this opportunity was not available at the beginning of question period

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have that on my list.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of the members to two distinguished guests in the Speaker's gallery. One is US Congressman Sherwood L. Boehlet from the 25th district, New York; and the other is H. R. Lucius, acting United States Consul General. Please welcome our two guests.

PETITIONS

BUS SERVICE

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 92 residents of the Wawa area to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines:

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

"That the bus service provided by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission between Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie not be terminated."

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Harris: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It reads:

"We understand that the government of Ontario plans to introduce legislation to permit the sale of some beers and wines in Ontario grocery stores....

"We, the undersigned, wish to express our objection to you, as our elected representative, and to the Lieutenant Governor to any legislation which would exclude us and our place of employment from the opportunity to sell our customers any product simply because we are not a so-called independent store."

They list these points:

"This practice would discriminate against our customers who choose to shop here of their free choice for reasons we believe we have contributed to.

"This practice would discriminate against us by encouraging our customers to shop elsewhere.

"We believe we work hard and conscientiously for our customers and intend to do so for beer and wine, as well as for any other products we sell, including many strictly regulated products.

"We object to any government action which jeopardizes our jobs and earnings by manipulating free consumer choice.

"We believe we have earned the right to be respected for the way we do our work. We demand that, if legislation is passed permitting beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores, our grocery store be given the same permission."

It is signed by about 35 hardworking members of the A & P Food Stores in North Bay, Ontario.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the following report:

Your standing committee on the Legislative Assembly begs to report that on September 3, and Thursday, September 4, it met to interview candidates for the position of Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

By unanimous consent the committee passed the following motion by Messrs. Mancini, Treleaven and Warner:

"That the Speaker seek an order in council from the Lieutenant Governor to appoint Claude L. DesRosiers as Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario at a starting salary of $77,900 and the status of deputy minister; and

"That the appointment be held `at pleasure' in accordance with section 74 of the Legislative Assembly Act."

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa has another report?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. Just before we pass on this one, I think the members will want to note that this was the first time in the history of this assembly that a process of this nature was used. I should report that the position was advertised across the country. It was the first time that members of the assembly have made the choice of Clerk of the House. It was something that was unique. I do not anticipate that we will be doing it often, but I do want to report that the process worked well and that there was an opportunity to talk to people who were very well qualified to hold the job of Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, which is in itself not a normal position for most people, but one that is rather specialized.

We are very pleased with the selection. We are pleased with the process. It was not exactly an easy one, and perhaps a little more cumbersome than it really had to be, but it was our first attempt to do that in our history. We felt rather good at the end of the process that everybody in this country who felt qualified to hold that position had the opportunity to apply for it. We want to congratulate several members of our own staff here who applied for it and who were extremely well qualified as well. In the end, one cannot hire everybody one would like. One person has to be picked, and the committee did that and, I believe, did its job well.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the committee's report on allegations of conflict of interest concerning Rene Fontaine, MPP, and moved its adoption.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have any brief comment to make?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. I want to mention briefly today that this again was work we have not done in the past and, I might add, very difficult work for members of my committee as, I am sure, it was for another committee that dealt with a similar conflict.

In moving the adoption of the report today, I think our intention is clear. We feel very strongly that this House needs to address itself to conflict-of-interest legislation. We are, of course, aware that John Black Aird has tabled a report on that matter itself and has spent some time this summer trying to lay the groundwork for such guidelines.

It is a difficult job for a committee of the Legislature to do this kind of examination. I suppose the alternative is to use a judicial inquiry if one feels there is serious wrongdoing and one wants to step away completely from the process, but traditionally we have used the process of a parliamentary committee to do this kind of examination. It worked, and in the end -- for our committee, at least -- it worked well. There was a report put together that was signed by everyone and to which everyone agreed. We had a long and difficult summer; not a pleasant task and not helped by the fact that, unlike many other assemblies across the country, we do not have a legislative framework with which to operate.

I would hope that in the near future this report would be called for debate and that the assembly would have that opportunity to discuss at some length what members here feel are appropriate guidelines in legislative form for members of the assembly.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

16:00

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. D. R. Cooke from the select committee on economic affairs presented the committee's final report, Ontario Trade Review, and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a brief statement?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I do. This report represents the most intensive study of the possible effect of bilateral free trade between Canada and the United States which has been undertaken by any legislative body in this country. It was the unanimous view of the committee, with some dissent on the part of the New Democratic Party members, that a comprehensive free trade agreement with the US is neither achievable nor realistic.

The committee arrived at three general conclusions. The government of this province and the federal government must work to diversify Canada's trading patterns. The world economy is so integrated that protectionism by any major country will have far-reaching repercussions for all other countries. We also came to the conclusion that a comprehensive agreement with the US is not achievable. It was the general view of the committee that the negotiations were somewhat ill advised and that the federal government was certainly ill prepared for those negotiations. In that regard, I would assume --

Mr. McFadden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: That was not a conclusion of the committee.

Mr. Pope: What just happened is unheard of.

Mr. Harris: That is unheard of in the history of this parliament. He cannot just sit here and lie to us and tell us stuff that is not in the report.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The report is just being tabled. I cannot make a decision on that. Is there any further comment?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Yes.

Finally, I come to the conclusion that it is important that in any arrangements that are made with the US, the provincial governments should have a role. In particular, a mechanism for solving trade disputes should take place, which would be binding on both governments and which would include, in so far as the government of Canada is concerned, some role by the provincial governments. In this regard, I draw the members' attention to the lumber dispute which may well result in a decision on a countervail by the US government this week. If we had a binding dispute resolution mechanism in place at this time, we might not have the problems we are now dealing with.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) has moved the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections.

Mr. Pope: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: What protection do we have when a chairman of a committee, in exercising his power as chairman, does not tell the truth about his report?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are certain rules that must be followed. I put the question --

Mr. Harris: And we said no.

Mr. Speaker: That is right. However, I heard it; therefore, I was going to call a vote on it. Is that agreeable?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

17:02

The House divided on Mr. D. R. Cooke's motion to adjourn the debate, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bossy, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Eakins, Elston, Epp, Ferraro, Fontaine, Fulton, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Kwinter, Mancini, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. L, Morin, Munro;

Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Offer, Poirier, Polsinelli, Reycraft, Riddell, Ruprecht, Sargent, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, Sweeney, Van Horne, Ward, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bernier, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Eves, Fish, Foulds, Gigantes, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Guindon, Harris, Hayes, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Lane, Laughren, Leluk, Mackenzie, Marland;

Martel, McCague, McClellan, McFadden, McLean, McNeil, Morin-Strom, O'Connor, Partington, Philip, Pollock, Pope, Rae, Reville, Rowe, Runciman, Sheppard, Shymko, Stevenson, K. R., Swart, Taylor, Turner, Villeneuve, Warner, Wildman.

Ayes 43; nays 59.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, before I continue this debate, I wish to raise a point of privilege. It is my understanding that the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) indicated that I did not tell the truth when I was tabling the report.

Mr. Speaker: It would not be a point of privilege; it could be a point of order, if that is what the member is raising. Is there any further debate?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I want to make something particularly clear. When the select committee on economic affairs started sitting in July 1985, it became clear very early in the game that the initiative and some of the activity that was taking place on the part of the federal government were not being supported in the Conservative benches of the committee. That view is not expressed in the report, and if there has been some misunderstanding about it, I want to make it perfectly clear.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Prior to the member beginning to speak, he rose on a point of privilege. It was not a point of privilege, but it was a point of order. A member of the House declared that he had not told the truth. As of this moment, that is clear and on the record all over Ontario. I believe that has to be clarified. A member has accused another member of the House of not telling the truth, and I do not believe we can let it go by. I would like you to pursue that, sir.

Mr. Harris: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: I see that it could be a point of order from the member for Kitchener, but I do not see why it is a point of order from the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).

Mr. Speaker: As I recall, the member for Kitchener got up and said the member for Cochrane South "may" have misled the House in his statement.

17:10

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Cochrane South stood in his place -- it was not an aside, a quip or anything -- and said the member for Kitchener had not told the truth. One cannot get much clearer than that, which is contrary to the standing orders of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am wondering, when did he say that? Was that prior to the bell ringing or --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, prior to the bell ringing. The member for Oshawa has raised a point of order, and I do not see the member for Cochrane South in his seat or within the precincts of the House.

Mr. Breaugh: Can I --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening, and I appreciate that it should be resolved at the immediate time. I will have to look at the record and act on it tomorrow, since the member is not here.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I appreciate that.

Mr. Wildman: Perhaps the member for Kitchener can tell us whether the member for Cochrane South was right.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the member for Algoma finished?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I appreciate that. My recollection of what occurred is the same as that of the member for Oshawa.

In any event, it is the case that a number of members of this House spent a great deal of time and effort and put together a very comprehensive report. A lot of thought was put into this report, which was based on the premise that there are in fact bilateral negotiations going on between our country and the US. The report itself does not comment on that fact; members of the House are quite aware of that.

My concern, which I stated earlier and which apparently irked so many members of this House opposite, is that there was certainly a feeling in the discussions that went on behind the scenes. It seemed to me pretty clear that there was a lot of concern about the way in which these negotiations were going on and about the preparedness of the federal government. I am simply making that as a statement of my own perception of what I saw when I was chairing the committee hearings during the course of the past 14 or months.

To come to a consensus -- and it did not particularly affect us in Ontario, because we have no say as to whether negotiations go on with the United States and Ontario -- we did not address that. We addressed what Ontario could get out of this that would be best for the people of Ontario and for the people of Canada as a whole. Where can we go from here?

That is exactly what we have done in a list of no fewer than 40 recommendations voted on by all 11 members of the committee -- excepting myself, of course -- and which resulted in a report to that effect, followed by a dissent prepared by the members of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Foulds: Good dissent too.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I do not care to comment on the dissent, because it does not particularly pertain to the report; in fact, it contradicts the report.

The multilateral and bilateral negotiations can be helpful if Canada and Ontario get their act together and look out for those things that are most important for our country and for our province.

The most important thing that we feel needs to be addressed -- and I am happy to say that during the course of the past several weeks this seems to have been the case with regard to the general public perception -- is the negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which commenced in mid-September from Punta del Este in Uruguay. I am delighted that our province and three other provinces were involved in those negotiations and discussions that took place at that time. I am delighted that a number of countries from the first world and the Third World were able to come to some understanding so that negotiations could continue.

One of the important aspects of these negotiations that should be emphasized is that the agricultural segment should be proceeded with as quickly as possible, with all due dispatch. In North America, indeed in the world, we have some semblance of a crisis in dealing with overproduction. It is time -- I think we are at one with our federal negotiator, Mrs. Ostry, on this -- that this crisis is dealt with and that some Third World country come to terms with the need to have a general reduction in tariffs in agriculture. The US is not necessarily moving in this direction at present.

The US Congress passed a Food Security Act in December 1985, an act which, unfortunately for the general debate on trade in the world, results in $70 billion being available to assist American agricultural production, including assisting the countries receiving American food in finding ways and means of using that food in case they do not particularly want it. That concerns me, and I think it concerned all members of our committee.

That $70 billion means that over the course of the next three years, up to $20 billion can be spent on this in any one year. The Food Security Act of 1985 is the most expensive single piece of legislation ever passed in the history of the US Congress, and we have to ask ourselves the extent to which the Americans are seriously interested in negotiating if they are going to be involved in an act of that nature.

The Americans are saying everything is on the bargaining table, including agriculture. If they are saying agriculture is on the bargaining table, I presume that somehow or other Canada will be exempted from the Food Security Act of 1985. I find that hard to understand, but that is essentially what will have to happen. I think I speak for the whole committee when I say we are concerned about the emphasis being put on that in the course of the negotiations.

The US has 50 states; it has a number of trade banners among its states. We have similar problems in this country; we have barriers that in effect need to be broken down. The committee spent a lot of time looking at a number of those barriers to labour mobility, to beer and wine, to alcohol, to construction materials and to things of that nature.

We have asked and endorsed the excellent results of the Belleville accord where ministers of industry and trade, under the chairmanship of our own Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), came to certain conclusions with regard to the future of interprovincial tariffs. Basically, they have a freeze on those tariffs right now, and they are doing an inventory of those tariffs with a view to their being reduced and, we hope, wiped out to the extent they can be wiped out, regardless of negotiations with the US. We have indicated that is of primary importance, and we have recommended to both levels of government that these tariffs be negotiated to the extent that they can be negotiated, in the interests of our own economy as well as the interests of the federal government.

17:20

That brings us to the purpose of the negotiations with the United States. In our discussions with Americans, we found they had a very smooth system. It is working well. The Office of the United States Trade Representative is small and compact in nature, but it has good tentacles into all the relevant departments of the American government: Agriculture, Labour, Commerce, Treasury and Secretary of State. All of these departments have people working vigorously to determine what is in the best interests of the United States in the negotiations with Canada.

In contrast to that, our government has set up what seems to this observer to be a rather bureaucratic office that has strained relations at best with many of the ministries of our own federal government and does not in all cases have good communications with the ministries of our own federal government. I suggest as well that this is certainly the case in its attempts to deal with the provinces and to keep the provinces up to date with what is going on in negotiations. As a result, it has been suggested, and it would seem to be the case, that a number of stances that perhaps could have been taken have not been taken, which would have benefited our position as a country in negotiating with the United States.

The most important of these will be rung home to this country in a very few days. The United States has a very complicated procedure called countervail. Countervail involves a situation whereby a producer in that country can allege injury of an economic nature and allege that it is a result of subsidies in a foreign country, e.g., Canada. Countervail then results when that allegation is made in a hearing by a tribunal called the United States International Trade Commission, which results in a decision about whether there is some evidence of injury.

If that decision is made, then the Department of Commerce proceeds to look at the subsidies in the foreign country. The Department of Commerce is, of course, a political arm of the administration of the United States and it has a political motivation when it goes to work, as does any political arm of a government. The Department of Commerce does not look at subsidies within the United States. In looking at lumber this week, the Department of Commerce will not look at subsidies in the United States, merely at subsidies in our country.

Once a decision is made about whether there is a subsidy, then the International Trade Commission makes a decision about what tariff should be put on the product to assist the American producer in overcoming his economic loss.

This is a primary problem facing our country today. It is a basic problem. I suggest it is a problem that is recurring over and over again in this country. For us to enter into negotiations and sign an agreement with that country only to have that law continue in place would mean effectively that months after the agreement is signed, these trade irritants could resurrect themselves, new decisions could be made about what is a subsidy in this country and we would continue on our merry way.

It is obvious that this should be on the bargaining table, and it is the case, as I understand it, that our federal trade negotiator is not prepared to put that on the bargaining table. I ask why. I suggest that this procedure should be moved to an international tribunal, which would be an example to the whole world of the way in which trade negotiations could go on in this country or between this country and the United States, two of the greatest trading partners in the world. There is perhaps more trade passing between us than between any other two countries in the world.

What an example that would be. It would require a certain surrender of sovereignty by both federal governments, because we would have to give up our rights to countervail, but we could give up our countervail and lose very little indeed. It would be a dramatic example, and it is not there. It is not on the bargaining table. This committee report speaks very directly to that question and it submits that our country should be raising that, so the Americans could be forced to deal with it.

We are asking that this be considered. We are asking that the provinces have some input into this international dispute resolution mechanism. We have not worked out all of the ways and means by which that input could occur. It does not mean necessarily that any one province would have a veto or anything of that nature, but we are asking that there be some input from the provinces. I submit that would be a wise course of events for this country and that Ontario should be involved. When I say that Ontario should be involved, again I am not saying we should have any kind of veto in that dispute resolution mechanism, but we should have some involvement in the setting up and the continual running of that type of mechanism.

Certain other things are very important and they need to be protected. Basically, the auto pact is the major source of our positive trade balance with the United States at this time. How quickly the Americans forget that the auto pact, over the course of the 21 years of its existence, has practically broken even in the amount of trade that has gone between the two countries. I understand that the difference is less than one hundredth of one per cent. While that balance is currently very much in the favour of our country, for most of the years the auto pact has been in existence, the balance was not in favour of our country.

Therefore, I am asking that Canada stand up for the auto pact and for the fact that it is a beneficial pact in total to both countries and has been so over the course of many years. We have a continental industry of managed trade that is working extremely well and, as we indicated, can work as an example in trade for the rest of the world. The committee has taken a pretty strong stand in that regard; again, that is something about which I did not really hear a dissenting voice. I suppose if we had free trade in everything else, the auto pact could disintegrate. It is our view, therefore, that it should be addressed. To that extent, it should be on the bargaining table to be addressed and it should be preserved.

In the area I come from, we are concerned about the Toyota plant. We are happy it is there. We are happy they are building and are injecting funds into our economy, but we are concerned that they too should wish to source their raw materials and parts in our province and in our country. Therefore, it is important that the auto pact be given some sense of permanence.

17:30

I had occasion to question the president of Toyota Canada on this subject, and one of the things he pointed out was that it does not have a sense of permanence right now. It is on the bargaining table. It is possible, I suppose, that if one were to talk to the federal negotiators in either country, it would be abolished. Even if it is not abolished, either country could give one year's notice and have the pact disintegrate.

This would be a moment, surely, that we could grasp to create a better climate for the auto pact, to have it addressed by both governments again, 21 years later, and to entrench it, perhaps more firmly, in the fabric of both our economies by re-agreeing to all of its terms and perhaps improving the period of time in which someone could opt out of the agreement. That is food for thought, and it is something that has to be considered carefully.

A number of items were addressed in our report. I am sure there are dozens of other speakers this afternoon who are prepared to address these at great length.

One of the matters that was addressed in passing by the Prime Minister in a speech he gave on national television in June this year was a matter that we found almost in passing when the federal negotiators talked to us about it, and that is the subject of national treatment. National treatment is a term whose significance at first blush most people who are not aware of trade matters -- and I certainly was not -- probably do not grasp. As is pointed out in our full report, it means that the investment from the country receiving such treatment is considered in the same way as domestic investment.

When one takes that and places it into an agreement between two countries, one is basically saying that all across the country, in every aspect of life that has not been specifically addressed, national treatment is going to occur.

That means a lot when one looks at some of the areas the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations deals with. He deals with all kinds of matters that involve licensing, dealing with the professions and dealing with various forms of activity in our province in which, if we were to grant national treatment to Americans, we would lose our opportunity to control the activity in the profession. Take real estate, for example. We would lose the opportunity to control those people who are real estate agents and brokers, because we would have to grant that treatment to those in the United States.

Again, the Prime Minister said in his television address in June that this is something our federal negotiators have been told to negotiate. The question arises about the extent to which they are really consulting with Ontario before attempting to negotiate our rights away in that very sensitive area.

There are some forms of activity where national treatment may well be very valuable. We have heard from the engineers, we have heard from the architects and we have heard from a number of professions to the effect that they are not fairly treated now by the Americans and that this is very much in contrast to the way in which we treat American citizens. It seems to me that a bridge is a bridge is a bridge. Unless there is some need to know about ice conditions, knowledge that would not be available to an engineer in Florida, I cannot see any reason that we cannot have national treatment in some of these areas.

These are some of the things that have to be worked out. Again, the cry goes out that there is a genuine lack of consultation in our country, with the provinces, with interest groups and with the professions generally. That area should be looked at very carefully. We should not, I submit, state that across-the-board national treatment should be available. Rather, we should pick and choose the areas in which we would like to have it available.

The report reiterates a number of the things we said in our interim report. That makes sense, because not a great deal has changed in the interim. The committee made trips to Washington and Ottawa in the summer of 1985. It made another trip to each capital in the summer of 1986. We probably had a unique perspective in the summer of 1986 on the attitudinal change that has gone on in the interim, a perspective that an administrator or someone even more closely associated with the negotiations would not necessarily have.

We found in 1986 that the Americans have changed in some very serious and important ways. I suggest they have changed in that they now are aware of us and know we are here. The congressman who was here today now is extremely aware of the negotiations going on in this country. He is trying to determine how they will affect what goes on in his 25th congressional district of New York state. Incidentally, that congressional district is mostly a farming district. It includes the cities of Utica and Schenectady, which are not terribly large cities, and the rich farming area around them.

He is attuned to the fact that farmers in his congressional district are telling him: "There is too much in the way of Canadian vegetables coming into our state right now. Do something about it." He is relating that to the news that now is getting out, including an editorial a week ago in the Washington Post, to the effect that these negotiations are front and centre and Canada is being noticed. Now that Canada is being noticed, maybe we should be standing up for some of the things we really want. Maybe it is too late to back out and say, "We did not want to get involved in this at all." That is a concern that is basically addressed in this report when we say, "Let us look out for this and let us look out for that."

The fact is that most Americans did not realize Canada was their leading trading partner. In fact, Ontario would be the leading trading partner of the US if one were to take it out of the federation; I am only suggesting that hypothetically, of course. It is the leading partner Canada has with the US. In view of the fact that the Americans now have taken notice of us, it is important that we make it clear where they benefit from dealing with us.

17:40

In other words, we have in this country an obligation to tell the people who make the laws in the US -- and that is not the President; that is each and every congressman, 435 of them, and 100 senators -- where they benefit in dealing with this country. That is surely the essence of a discussion that would result in better trade between this country and that country.

A good example is what took place in the steel industry in 1984, when the president of Stelco spent most of the year in Washington attempting to make certain that Canada was exempted from a tariff that was being put on steel. In the last analysis, the only way that could be done was to convince individual congressmen that their jurisdiction, their constituency, was dependent to some extent on Canada.

When we have 23 per cent of the trade of the US, if you do a little research, it is not hard to find the evidence and get it front and centre in front of a congressman about where people in his constituency are going to lose jobs unless Canada is granted a special exemption. That is the sort of initiative that is needed in that country.

We have the parliamentary tradition. We are not used to the lobbying efforts that go on in the US, directly with congressmen, but it is about time we learned and got involved in that. Ontario has the most to lose unless we do. That is why, over not-too-subtle pressure from the federal government to ignore the recommendation in our first report, we have recommended once again that an Ontario office be opened in the district of Columbia, which would assist and co-ordinate and involve businesses in this province when they have to deal with the problems in the Congress of the US.

We have made it very clear that Ontario must be more involved in this sort of thing to make certain our interests are protected. As I say, that is not something that will fall upon pleased ears in Ottawa. However, I would remind Ottawa that there are Ontario Houses in London, Paris, Tokyo and other capitals of the world, and I would remind Ottawa as well that an Ontario House, particularly in Paris, may be there for more than simply economic reasons. That is for those arguments we hear that there are no major corporate capitals in the district of Columbia.

That does not really matter. The decision-making process is occurring in the district of Columbia, and we should be actively involved in that process. That is how we are going to protect jobs in Ontario: By making them aware of the good things that are happening in that country because of the activity and the co-ordinated trade between it and this country.

One of the most curious parts of this debate has to do with what we refer to as our culture. It is an emotional issue in this country, with good reason. I do not need to expound upon it and the reasons behind our having decided over the course of history to do certain things, to take certain measures to protect what is near and dear to us. Because we have virtually a single line of inhabited territory 100 to 200 miles wide that runs from coast to coast, we have needed to develop, over the years, a means of communication so we can understand one another and so we can build our own nation in our own way. It has been a very different way from the way the Americans have built a melting pot, which is very much intertwined with instant mass communication, but it is extremely important to us.

At first, we were told by the federal people, the negotiators, that it was on the bargaining table. Then, when the pressure got a little heavy, we were told it was not on the bargaining table. The important thing is you have to have it there to say you do not want these things affected and you have to have these things there to explain to the Americans exactly what you mean.

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Does the Speaker know whether it is the intent of the member to talk this out and deliberately delay until the end of the session? Having made one mistake, he will be making a second one if that is the procedure the chairman of the committee is using. It should be brought to the attention of the House.

Mr. Speaker: First, that is not a point of privilege or a point of order. It sounded like a question of the Speaker, and the Speaker is unable to answer questions; therefore, will the member continue.

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: While we have this interruption, if anything I said may have offended you, I withdraw it and apologize to you, sir.

Mr. Speaker: I accept the member's withdrawal. Thank you. That will save me a lot of research this evening. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: It was not my initial desire or intention to speak on this subject at all this afternoon, but it is the case that the opposition has given me an opportunity to express some views that are very important to me, and I intend to do that.

Mr. Foulds: If the member is going to filibuster, he is in trouble.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: It took 18 months to get it and it will take at least 18 months to get through it. The question I was addressing was the question of culture.

Mr. Foulds: That is fine. If the members opposite want trouble on this, let them BS on it for the next hour. If they want trouble on this, they are going to get it.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The question I was addressing was the question of our national identity. I cannot recall a single American who really grasped what we were talking about. We spoke to some Americans who understood it in an academic way, particularly those who may have studied in this country for some time.

The case is that our culture is something we have had to grow up with. We have had to grow up with a country 10 times as large as ours behind us, right beside us, towering over us, influencing us through magazines, films and television. We understand that, and it is something the Americans have never had to deal with at all. What they say to us is, "If it is that important to you, then buy yourselves out of it."

What I suggest should have been done is that the federal government should have said, "Tit for tat." They should have put similar things on their bargaining table. The congressman for the 25th district of the state of New York has major industries in his congressional district which are defence production industries. Defence production industries have been put into a lot of regions in the US that have employment problems. It is not that different from the sort of thing we do in that regard. When one stops and looks at it, their concern about national security can be correlated to some extent to our concerns about culture. Surely those two matters could have been put into some sort of a context so they could have been uniformly taken off the bargaining table.

17:50

As I indicated earlier, I have a number of matters that have, frankly, just popped into my mind and that concern me about the negotiations going on between this country and the US. I am certain I have others I would have been able to address, had I known earlier we were going to be discussing this subject today. I certainly do want to hear from members opposite who are anxious that this matter be discussed -- obviously, as thoroughly as possible -- and I am therefore prepared to conclude my address at this time.

I say once again that I was extremely pleased with the co-operation and the work that went on in this committee. Members opposite and members of my own party worked extremely hard. It is the most extensive inquiry and review of this activity that has gone on in a legislative context in this country. There are very extensive inquiries going on now in the US; I am not aware of any others in this country. I commend to the government that it very carefully read our recommendations. Frankly, I also commend those recommendations to the government of Canada.

Mr. McFadden: It is unfortunate that the excellent work of this committee has come to this kind of situation today. The report which the chairman of the committee filed this afternoon was a product of excellent work by a group of 11 members of this House, who took their responsibility seriously and tried to come up with a report that fairly and accurately represented the needs of Ontario in the very competitive and tough world in which we are living today.

The genesis of the problem related to remarks the chairman made in presenting the committee's report to this House earlier today. I have a copy of the Instant Hansard, and the chairman of the committee is quoted as saying the following, "The committee arrived at three general conclusions." One of the three conclusions he cites is as follows, "It was the general view of the committee that the negotiations were somewhat ill advised and that the federal government was certainly ill prepared for those negotiations." That was not mentioned anywhere whatsoever in the text of the committee report, either by implication or in whole or in part.

The chairman mentions his observations related to certain behind-the-scenes talks, but the context in which those words were made was his report to this Legislature, which was supposedly to represent the consensus view of the committee. That certainly was not the consensus view of the committee or the majority view, and it does not appear anywhere in the text of this report. I will quote from two or three places in the final report to illustrate that. I refer to page 34 of the report, which reads as follows:

"The bilateral free trade negotiations between Canada and the United States that have begun are part of a long history of close relations. Occasional problems have arisen to strain these relations but, considering the length of our border and the magnitude of interrelationship, these have been infrequent. Trade issues may be the explicit subject of these negotiations. Trade establishes the health of both economies and is, thus, intimately involved in political, social and cultural institutions. A relationship that ensures a friendly and open environment is necessary in order to have stable, secure and expanding trade."

The committee report goes on to talk about the two principal goals of the trade negotiations; it says as follows:

"There are two principal goals of the bilateral trade negotiations. The first is to remove the few tariff barriers that still exist between the two countries and to try to remove as many nontariff barriers as possible. The second has two components: to secure access to each other's market by obtaining exemption from potential protectionist actions and by establishing some framework for dealing with the harassment which may result from various contingency protection actions."

The committee report then discusses the ways in which the negotiations could be worked through and an agreement secured which would be to the mutual advantage of Canada and the US. Very specifically, the report states: "...The goal of these negotiations should be to reduce or eliminate barriers to trade between our two countries in a mutually beneficial manner."

In my view, the committee report fairly and accurately sets out the depth and the complexity of the trading relationship between Canada and the US, but it did more than that. In a number of recommendations, the committee report also deals with the importance of the new rounds of negotiations starting under the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade.

The report goes on to discuss the development of actual free trade within Canada so that we can have the freer movement of goods and services between provinces. The committee report specifically endorses the initiatives taken by both the current government and previous governments to break down the barriers among the various provinces. In effect, the committee report sought to look at the relationship not in a polemical light but in a light that reflected the practical issues and problems between our two countries. As the chairman stated and as the committee report specifically stated, it is not feasible in the current environment, and it might not even be desirable for many, to have a free trade agreement with the US in the classical definition of that term.

It is fairly clear that neither the federal government in Canada nor in the US expects a total free trade area to be established. That is clear, and I do not think it is refutable. The Prime Minister of Canada and members of the negotiating team have all made it very clear that we are not negotiating a free trade area with the US. What is under discussion here is a trade agreement with the US to deal with the irritants and to look to reduce barriers to the mutual advantage of both sides.

Surely that is to the advantage of Canada. Why do we want barriers created between our two countries? Do we want countervail to come in to hurt Canadian exports? Do we not want to establish some form of dispute settlement mechanism between our two countries? Surely all the objectives set out in the committee report are valid and useful objectives.

What the committee report tried to approach was that we should not prejudge the negotiations at this stage. What our committee tried to do, and I think do effectively, was to set out the priorities that the negotiators in GATT and the negotiators with the US should follow in terms of dealing with the priorities and the needs of Ontario. Consequently, we touched on the need to strengthen the auto pact and the need to redefine the special privileges that are offered to developing countries so they cannot enter the country and put Canadian manufacturers at a disadvantage when they are not entitled to the same kind of special treatment as other developing countries that have not industrialized to the same extent.

18:00

There are those who wanted the select committee on economic affairs to condemn the opening up of trade and the trade talks with the United States. What the New Democratic Party refuses to admit is that the committee came out in favour of the opening up of trade between Canada and the United States, between provinces and between nations around the world. That was the essence of the committee report.

In comparing the previous dissenting report of the NDP with this one, I find it interesting that the NDP now acknowledges that there is some utility in having trade talks with the United States. In essence, they are advocating that we close the current talks and start new ones to deal with irritants and perhaps dispute settlement mechanisms and other things. It was the view of the majority of the committee that that was ridiculous. There is no reason the talks cannot go on.

Mr. Foulds: Canada should put the auto pact on the table to strengthen it.

Mr. McFadden: The member for Port Arthur is interjecting and suggesting that the auto pact be put on the table to strengthen it. If we could strengthen the auto pact, it would be a good deal for Canada. There is no reason that cannot be achieved. As I understand it, there is no pressure from either Canada or the United States to open the auto pact. This is a red herring the NDP likes to throw out every time this discussion comes up.

Recommendation 1 of the NDP dissent goes on as follows: "The comprehensive free trade nature of talks be abandoned and the talks refocused to deal solely with the resolution of current trade disputes and the development of a bilateral mechanism to resolve future problems."

If I have ever seen sleight of hand, that happens to be it. In effect, the NDP dissent endorsed the thrust of the majority report with other words.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is like calling the auto pact free trade.

Mr. McFadden: That is interesting. The member for Windsor-Riverside talks about the auto pact not being free trade. The fact is that the Canadian Auto Workers and the NDP are going around the country misrepresenting what the auto pact is. It may be a form of managed free trade; it is also a form of free trade.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The member is starting to sound like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman). He had better be careful.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Eglinton has the floor. Will members please stop interjecting. The member for Kitchener is not in his seat and he is interjecting.

Mr. McFadden: The committee did not suggest that trade talks were ill advised. The committee report stated that trade talks could achieve something useful with the Americans and should go ahead on an agenda that will achieve it. Given Ontario's tremendous dependency on international trade and, in particular, its trade with the United States, I can see no valid reason that Canada should not now be carrying on trade talks with the Americans to forestall protectionist measures, to open up our trading relationship and to deal with future disputes.

To say what will come out of the discussions is to become a Cassandra or a fortune teller. What we have done in this report is set out for the federal negotiators in Canada a series of conditions and approaches we think are important for Canada. They are valid, they are practical and they are based on the sound judgement of the committee after 14 months of research.

The problem I think we now have: I hope the latest impasse in terms of our discussions here today will not break down the legitimate spirit of co-operation we have tried to evolve in our work in discussing the economic affairs of this province. The select committee set a standard of work and co-operation that is important for Ontario and valuable for this Legislature. I hope the standing committee on finance and economic affairs can carry on in the same spirit of co-operation and sensitivity and with the same desire to look at issues in a way that is consistent with the best interests of Ontario.

There are a lot of reasons why we can be partisan in this House and there are certainly economic issues about which we can be partisan, but it seems to me that this report was on an area in which we made a real effort to look at the issues in a practical and objective light. I believe the report of the committee reflects that. There may be some who feel the committee should have come out against trade talks with the Americans, against the current trade talks.

An hon. member: Free trade talks.

Mr. Foulds: What are you describing them as? Freer? Enhanced?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You sound like Brian now.

Ms. Gigantes: You are backing off.

Mr. McFadden: The fact is that the federal government, in repeated statements by the Prime Minister and by ministers, has specifically not referred to these talks as free trade talks; it has talked about them as trade talks. That has been going on for quite some time. I suggest what we now are trying to do is create phoney distinctions that add nothing to the discussions and that undermine the ability of the federal government to negotiate in a way that will deal with the salient issues that have to be dealt with between our countries.

Mr. Foulds: Which are?

Mr. McFadden: Someone asked, "Which are?" Let us discuss them. I assume it is to the advantage of both countries to break down barriers between our countries in a mutually beneficial way. Historically, after every General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade round has been completed, people have gone out and said: "Good lord, barriers to trade are being reduced. Canada is going to be destroyed."

The fact is that after successive GATT rounds, Canada has consistently done better than after the previous round. We have consistently gained as the successive rounds under GATT have opened up and liberalized world trade. That is why the committee endorsed the strengthening of GATT. After all, what does GATT mean? GATT represents an agreement to open up and to free trade between countries to the greatest extent possible.

All that the talks with Americans are designed to do is to open up and free up trade. Nobody realistically expects all banners to disappear. It is not going to happen. Nobody expects it to happen. Anybody who suggests that these are the objectives of the talks is kidding people. The talks are aimed at establishing a more meaningful, deeper and better trading relationship between our two countries.

The committee report, in the consensus and in the majority, endorses the concept of talks going ahead to the mutual benefit of both countries, so that we can establish mechanisms and a framework under which the future trading relationship between our two countries can continue to develop and prosper.

That surely is a valid and necessary objective for Ontario, one that is clearly in the best interests of the workers, the professions, the businesses and all the people of this province. Therefore, I am pleased to stand to support the final report as submitted to the House.

18:10

Mr. Mackenzie: The bilateral free trade initiative that we entered into almost a year ago is one of the most stupid and hare-brained projects this country has ever seen, and I think members of the committee have begun to realize that.

I sat with some amazement listening to the chairman of the committee in his filing of the report in the House today. It seemed to me he was arguing for the dissent that the New Democrats had submitted in that report. I wish he had been more willing to do that during the course of the hearings when we practically begged them to put an end to the charade of comprehensive bilateral free trade talks. I listened to the Tories and, even there, there is a backoff that is rather strange.

I would like to remind the House of two or three things. First, in our last trip to Washington and Ottawa, one of the questions asked was what the intent is. We were clearly told that the goal and the intent were still a comprehensive bilateral free trade agreement. Members can talk all they want and they can hide all they want, and that is exactly what is happening here. We have an embarrassed chairman who knows he has made a mistake in the report that was issued.

The objectives of the US are clear. We do not have time in the few minutes I have left today to go into all the things I would like to go into. If I may digress for a moment, we talked to senators and congressmen in Washington and we asked them about the timetable and the possibility of achieving this agreement that the government had entered into, of this initiative succeeding with a comprehensive free trade agreement, and they laughed at us.

They told us there was no way within the time frames set up that this comprehensive trade agreement could be done unless -- always with a great big laugh and smile which came from every one of the elected US officials we talked to -- we gave them a good enough deal. In other words, "If you want to give away the store, fine, you may get a deal."

We are entering into trade talks now. Before we start, we have already given away some of the major playing cards we might have had in such a set of comprehensive trade talks. The Foreign Investment Review Agency was down the drain before we ever started, and that was something they really wanted in the US. The national energy policy was practically destroyed, something else they wanted. We have caved in on cruise missile testing, and now we have the generic drug issue.

My God, what have we got left to negotiate with? They say they do not want to put something like the auto pact or even agriculture on the table. That was the first step. We changed it slightly in the final report. We do not want to put them on the table. They should not be on the table. There should not be free trade talks if these items are on the table.

The other thing that people are not being very honest about in this House in this debate is that all these issues, certainly the auto pact and agriculture, had to be on the table, and that was made very clear by the Americans when we talked to them as well. Is anybody stupid enough to think that we are going to enter into a series of talks and put the auto pact, which is one of the few things that is our salvation jobwise in Ontario, on the table and then negotiate ourselves out of it?

Do you think we are not going to be giving up something to get that? What is the tradeoff? What all do we give up when we protect, if indeed we can protect, the auto pact? In that context, I want to bring to your attention something in the dissent of the New Democratic Party. Members should take a good look at our dissent on pages F-1 to F-8, the final item in the final report.

Paul Volcker, chairman of the US Federal Reserve, certainly a power in tax or trade matters in the US, stated clearly in a seminar on Critical Issues in the US Economy in April this year that the US strategy -- and we are talking now about its deficit and the free trade talks -- was to lower its trade deficit with Canada by $10 billion.

We have a surplus of $20 billion or $22 billion, but it is going down now. The only area that means a hell of a lot of jobs in this country where we have a surplus is the auto pact, and it is six or seven or eight billion dollars. is anybody foolish enough to think that, with the stated goal of a top US official to cut the American deficit with Canada by $10 billion, one of the items they are not going to be looking at is the one area in which we have a surplus and which does create jobs? Are we fools?

There was an editorial in the Toronto Star on September 27, just a matter of a few days ago. It occurred after we had our press conference filing the final report. What did that editorial say? I have not seen it put better, and I think it highlights the case we are trying to make. The editorial simply says, "Having It Both Ways."

We certainly heard examples of that here today from both the chairman of the committee and the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden), who tried to argue that we were not really talking about total free trade.

An hon member: The Toronto Star is a socialist rag.

Mr. Mackenzie: The Toronto Star has been the member's paper most of the time.

I ask all members to listen to this, because I think it puts it in a nutshell:

"The Ontario Legislature's select committee on economic affairs has produced its final report on the province's trade options. It shouldn't have bothered.

"The all-party committee, with the exception of the New Democratic Party, decided that, on the one hand, we should pursue trade talks with the US, but on the other hand, a comprehensive free trade agreement, the aim of the current round of talks between Canada and the US, is `neither achievable nor desirable.'

"In other words, the Liberal and Progressive Conservative committee members boldly stood up for having it both ways.

"We're used to doubletalk from politicians, but this committee takes the cake. We think the NDP members on the committee had it right when they issued a dissenting report that said free trade talks should be shelved because `jobs will be lost, industries will suffer and Canadian sovereignty would be threatened.'"

That, my friends, is about as effective a case for the dissent that we filed as can be made. When people say we have to continue, we have to go on, we started the initiative and it is too late to stop, I cannot help but think of these sound remarks, which I recommend to my Tory colleagues in this House. They obviously were not listening, and perhaps it is one of the reasons there is such a lack of these kinds of voices in their caucus today.

The arguments were made in Washington by Bob Elgie, who made it very clear that he did not support free trade talks and that the longer we continued this charade the more irritants and hot points we were going to expose and the more trouble we were going to have in the trade situation.

This party has never said, not in our interim report -- and there is some misreading of it there -- nor in the final report, that we do not think there should be talks. What we are saying is that talks have never stopped going on. There were talks long before they started this narrow, comprehensive bilateral framework, and there will always be talks. It is exactly what did happen. On that point, the chairman is right in terms of the steel industry.

To put it in the context of a set time frame, an agreement that has to be approved in the US Senate and House, with all the back-offs that members on both sides of the House are now trying to do, that is a comprehensive bilateral free trade agreement, is to do this country an injustice and to prevent us from getting on with solving some of the real problems we have in settling the disputes.

It is the issue of perhaps more, not less, negotiations like the auto pact, which is not by any stretch of the imagination or any twisting of facts a free trade agreement of any kind at all. It is the kind of fair trade agreement that all of us in this country will accept. It may be there are other areas where we can take a look at this.

It also stops us. We are wasting a whole year and exposing all these problems when we could be looking at things such as content legislation, which is really the basis of the auto pact. We could be looking at what we could do ourselves, the way a family would when in trouble -- in other words, replacing some of our imports with materials, goods and manufacturing that we can produce and do ourselves here in this country.

Those suggestions make sense, as does an ongoing mechanism, not exactly like but modelled after the initial aim of the International Joint Commission on the waterways, some kind of mechanism that recognizes early on a hot point between us and the United States, a point of potential dispute, and starts pulling the facts together so it can be answered.

18:20

Steel is one of them; we may have problems there. I want to deal with that for a moment. When they resolved the dispute in 1984 to which the chairman referred, they did it on the basis of some damned good work done by Stelco and a number of other people, and some of our officials in Washington as well, who were able to point out to individual senators and congressmen in the US that we were buying back $1.25 worth for every dollar of finished steel we were selling and that they would be hurting themselves if they continued with this. As I understand it, that figure is now up to $1.29.

That kind of preparing the groundwork and gathering the information is what we should be doing in the areas where we have disputes. We should not be putting everything on the table and saying, "Maybe some kind of comprehensive agreement is going to allow us to get out of trouble in these issues."

It is also worth noting that we are talking about a comprehensive agreement that starts with a level playing field and saves some of our industry. We are going to remove all the tariffs and other barriers to trade.

I do not mind using a quote from the president of the Canadian Auto Workers. I find it strange that when we take a look at what is happening currently in our talks and in our current situation with the US, in those areas where we have already achieved total free trade and no tariff -- I am thinking of the shakes and shingles, for example -- what is the US doing? It is slapping a 35 per cent tariff on us. We were almost in the same position with fish, cut flowers, steel and a number of other items. They are the very areas they are hitting us with and throwing on tariffs.

Does it make any sense that we work like hell and trade off some of the additional points to give us a comprehensive agreement, so they can continue to slap on tariffs and the rest of it? There is no guarantee in any agreement that we will not face the same kind of situation in the US. Even in a bilateral comprehensive trade agreement you are not going to be able to take away the protection of countervailing duties in the US. They made it very clear to us, even in the context of an agreement that was not negotiable.

What does that mean? It means any American company can simply say, "Our company, our exports and our production are being hurt by imports from Canada;" or it can say there is an unfair subsidy in Canada. That unfair subsidy should bother every single person in this room, because it can encompass almost all our social programs as well. The minute they take that, then they can go after countervailing duty legislation. It does not make sense for us to enter into this kind of agreement with the US when we do not have that protection removed, and we will not have it removed.

I find it is difficult at times to understand the thinking of members who, like me, have heard the Americans -- and our own people, I might say, it is not just the Americans -- tell us, "Yes, the auto pact, agriculture, everything has to be on the table." They do not understand that the minute you are able to move one of those off the table or get some protection, there is a price for it. I cannot understand people who cannot see the current pattern in the US and the real problems it has, and understand that we are going into those negotiations with a more than $20-billion surplus, that a good chunk is in the heavily job-related auto industry and that we have statements such as Mr. Volcker's, which clearly says, "Our goal in the negotiation is to reduce our deficit by $10 billion." Where the hell are they going to reduce it other than in the job-related areas we are now freely going to put on the table in a series of comprehensive negotiations?

Then, given the current protectionist mood in the US and the current concerns and fears of US congressmen and senators, we do not understand that when we set up this committee that is supposed to enhance our trade and to bring us to an equal playing field level, they are not going to take a look at that, and every time they find out that we have a slightly different system from theirs -- they did not win the fish item on this, but as we all know, the New England Governors squawked like hell about the fact that Newfoundland fishermen were collecting unemployment insurance payments two or three months of the year because they could not fish year-round. That was one of the things that initially triggered the attack on our exports of fish to the US.

As I think one of the previous members, Bob Elgie, clearly stated, every time we expose a sore point or an irritant -- we have it now in softwood lumber, and we have had it in cut flowers, in hogs and in issue after issue -- a coalition of US senators and congressmen will say, "Hey, here is one other area we had better have clearly decided before we enter into it." As a matter of fact, we now have them saying that both the softwood lumber issue and the steel issue -- they are trying to reopen it -- should be settled before we enter into any kind of agreement or get serious in our negotiations.

My God, let me remind members once again that before we enter into it there are the national energy policy, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, cruise missile testing, generic drugs which is going to be a real load for senior citizens in this country -- probably softwood lumber shortly, and they would like us to settle the steel deal. That is all before we get down to business. What are we going to trade off with what is left in those kinds of talks?

Let us start talking some common sense. Let us take a look at the kind of mechanism and whether it is worth working on, because I suspect it also costs the Americans one hell of a pile when they have to go through fights such as they are going through even on the softwood lumber deal. Let us see if there is not some common ground in trying to set up the mechanisms to deal with those kinds of disputes.

Let us also take a look at the auto industry and do some preparatory work in advance. We have a real problem coming up there. It is not just the auto pact we are now dealing with; it is whether we are going to be able to sell parts from the auto industry we have to some of the new plants being set up in this country. That is a serious point. That in itself could undermine the auto pact we already have.

Let us take a look at how we strengthen the auto pact, and look at it as being an absolute necessity. The Japanese firms that have set up manufacturing and production facilities in this country also have to source from some of the auto parts plants we have already developed in this province, which do a damned good job.

Let us look at whether there is another area we could be looking at with the type of fair trade agreement we have in the auto pact. It might very well be possible in farm machinery in northern Ontario. It should be possible in our food industry, in which we have seen major segments disappear. I still am never able to get over my favourite story about the loss of canned tomatoes in this province. Not many years ago we canned 70 per cent of what we used. We now are down to less than 20 per cent. Agricultural critics have told me that we could produce everything we would ever need in this crop, but we no longer have the canning plants, and we no longer have the ability to supply our own needs.

Let us take a look at the food industry and at some of the other industries to find out whether our approach should be a deal similar to the auto pact or at least a very clear intent in terms of the economy and the protection of jobs in this country. Let us look at what we could be manufacturing ourselves, what we could be doing; in other words, import replacement. If we are not prepared to do that, we are in trouble.

If some people think we are cheating a bit with that approach, I would remind members that probably the healthiest trading country in the world, or close to it, is Japan. The Japanese did not do it by free access to their markets. They did it by protecting their damned markets and going out to move one item at a time into the other markets.

I do not think we should take that total approach, but it makes sense for us to decide what we have to protect and what we need as a national identity. I have not had a chance to get into the threats to our social and cultural identity, but they are there. These are the kinds of things we should take a clear and careful look at. This is the type of approach we should take, and it does not envisage stopping talks with the Americans or anybody else.

As part of that strategy, we also think the emphasis should be on trying to renew, and obviously a major job is needed to make it acceptable because there have been problems with it; but the multilateral trade approach through GATT would make much more sense than continuing to put all our eggs in one export basket: the US.

When are we going to start taking a look at the alternatives? When are we going to stop them beating us over the head with the problems there obviously are in the trade situation? This government could have taken the initiative. In my opinion, it could have given the Premier (Mr. Peterson) a tremendous leg up by issuing the kind of report that was in our dissent, which says, "Hey, we do not disagree with the talks, but the approach is not the narrow, bilateral, comprehensive trade agreement that sets the wrong tone and the wrong objectives and clearly makes it impossible for us to win from the beginning." He could have gone to the first ministers' conference with some real marbles, instead of us not knowing in this committee which side of the fence the Liberals are on in the free trade issue.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. May I draw the attention of the member to the clock? Perhaps he would like to move adjournment of the debate.

On motion by Mr. Mackenzie, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

14 octobre 1986