Journal des débats 1987-déc-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of information for members in the Legislature: I would like to point out that the apples on their desks today were grown in Vittoria, in what was the capital of London district in the government of Upper Canada from 1815 to 1825. They were grown on the farm of Tom and Joan Haskitt. They are Delicious apples, given to the members in the spirit of Christmas. We wish all members well.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all the members, thank you for that point of information.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

Miss Martel: I would like to bring to the attention of the House the case of Mrs. Carla Xavier of Sudbury, Ontario. Members should be aware, by way of correspondence to each of them, that Mrs. Xavier is a cancer patient undergoing treatment, with some success, at the Falk Oncology Centre in Toronto.

The problem is that the particular treatment, a combination of medication and hypothermia, is not recognized as approved treatment by the Ontario health insurance plan. It should be noted, however, that the particular treatment is recognized in several other jurisdictions, including the United States. Furthermore, Dr. Rudy Falk, who heads the centre, is a renowned physician, surgeon and expert in the field of oncology.

It is incredible to me that the Ministry of Health will not allow this treatment and assist this family. The medical expenses now amount to some $800 every three weeks, let alone the travel and other expenses associated with visiting the clinic. It seems to me there is enough pain and suffering associated with cancer that the ministry should be doing everything possible to alleviate at least the financial burdens associated with cancer treatment.

I encourage the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) to review the particular case and extend full benefits to Mrs. Xavier and other cancer victims who are benefiting from treatment at the Falk clinic. I encourage all other members to implore the Minister of Health to act immediately in this regard.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Cousens: I would like to raise the important subject of the disposal of waste at the Keele Valley landfill site in Vaughan. This landfill site has three problems that have arisen, one per month for the last three months. Most recently, as we have seen in the media, jet waste is being sent to Vaughan in south York region, 10 tonnes a day of untreated garbage from international flights arriving at Pearson International Airport. This waste should be incinerated instead of being sent to a landfill site. We are concerned that although there have been private proposals given to the ministry to do something about this waste, it continues to be sent to south York region.

I am concerned as well with the problem in November. The town of Vaughan passed a resolution on November 3. Council believes that the Ministry of the Environment must show the same concern for the Maple community and its residential growth and urban and social character as it has shown the Riverdale area in undertaking to remove contaminated material from that community.

There was a resolution as well in October. The same town council of Vaughan passed another resolution saying that, as of then, the town of Vaughan had not been consulted in any way on the terms and conditions on an amendment to the provisional certificate of approval for landfill.

Three months in a row we have had problems with the Ministry of the Environment not dealing fairly or correctly with the people of Vaughan. This has to change.

HERITAGE DAY

Mr. Owen: An annual holiday on the third Monday of February for the people of Ontario is long overdue. A respite from the dreary cold of winter between New Year’s Day and Easter should be made available to our citizens.

Of equal importance should be the opportunity to honour the people and events of our heritage, and by designating the third Monday of February as Heritage Day, a notable person or happening can be reviewed and honoured across the province.

At the same time, each local community can do the same for a citizen or event of significance for the history of that community.

With such a process we can educate and focus attention on our rich and exciting past. We would better understand our present and future if, as a people, we had greater knowledge and appreciation of our history and roots. Let us learn about and honour John Graves Simcoe, Laura Secord, our premiers, the martyrdom of Jesuits, Drs. Best and Banting, Sir Ernest MacMillan, the restoration of the Elgin and Winter Garden theatres or this building in which we debate, the reclaiming of the Holland Marsh, our native people, Mennonites, Ukrainians and Irish.

The past is rich and varied. Let us all start on the journey of rediscovering it. Let us finally designate the third Monday of February as Heritage Day in Ontario. Our past demands it; our future needs it. Let us act.

STEEP ROCK RESOURCES INC.

Mr. Hampton: Last week the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) acknowledged that his ministry was negotiating with Steep Rock Resources for the surrender of the former Steep Rock Iron Mines site in Atikokan.

When Steep Rock Iron Mines shut down its Atikokan mine in 1979, the company reputedly took $53 million with it out of the community and the community lost some 600 full-time jobs. Now Steep Rock Resources wants to dump the abandoned mine site back on the province.

The site contains two polychlorinated biphenyl dumps which must be inspected and eventually disposed of, 17 water control dams which must be maintained in order that the water levels in surrounding lakes are stable, and the legal liability which necessarily attaches to a huge open-pit mine located near a community of 5,000 people.

The minister’s staff has acknowledged that under the provisions of the current Mining Act, the province’s bargaining position vis-à-vis Steep Rock Resources is very weak and the province may be stuck with site maintenance costs well into the future.

The province has already indicated it intends to review the Mining Act very soon. Why not proceed with that immediately and then deal with Steep Rock Resources only after we have a new Mining Act -- one that has some teeth in it, one that can deal with the situation and does not result in the province having extreme costs dumped upon the public purse?

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

Mr. Runciman: In the last six years there have been at least 28 chartered-bank branch closures in Ontario; in the past six months, two in my riding in the villages of North Augusta and Lyndhurst. Because of this callous approach by the chartered banks, many small towns and villages are without adequate banking services. There are more than 100 households in North Augusta, where those people living on the outskirts of the village consider there is a need for a financial service to fill the void.

I believe the establishment of a Province of Ontario Savings Office in those communities deserted by private sector banks would effectively fill this financial services void. A lack of local banking services is particularly injurious to senior citizens who cannot get around easily, and this results in a disincentive for people to live in small rural communities. I understand there have been a number of requests from different areas of the province to open branches and to provide satellite banking service.

1340

I believe the government is obligated to review these requests and to provide financial services in those areas where population levels demonstrate a need for them and where financial benefit can be determined. Unlike the private sector banks, the Province of Ontario Savings Office is not profit-oriented. It does not compete with the private sector: rather, it is geared to providing necessary services to communities similar to North Augusta. I urge the government to ensure that the Province of Ontario Savings Office is utilized to meet this growing financial services crisis.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Daigeler: Although Bill 8 was supported by all three parties, much was made during the election by certain members of the opposition about the dangers arising from this initiative with regard to job security for unilingual anglophones. I am pleased to see that the government has renewed its pledge to implement the French Language Services Act rather than retreat in the face of misinformation and fear-mongering.

No doubt the implementation of this act must be done sensibly and with due regard for the employment rights of English-speaking Ontarians. We must make every effort to avoid the friction brought about by certain federal initiatives. At least in eastern Ontario, there is a substantial number of people who feel threatened by the promised increase of government services in French. The implementation of Bill 8 must therefore be accompanied by a detailed and prolonged information campaign as to what is being done.

In my view, our efforts to protect Franco-Ontarian culture should be much broader than mere information about the law. As I see it, we must make deliberate and determined efforts to promote better understanding between anglophones and francophones in this province.

In this context, I would like to welcome the fact that after a five-year period of inactivity, the Ontario-Quebec Commission for Co-operation was reactivated last April. I wish to encourage both provinces to put forward proper funding and to encourage those cultural, educational, sports and cultural groups to engage in frequent --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member’s time has expired. The member for Hamilton West for 35 seconds.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Allen: Nine years ago, the same day on which the new detention centre in Hamilton was opened, the forensic psychiatry unit at the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital was closed. Since then the region’s police, courts, corrections officials, social workers and psychiatrists, not to mention the affected prisoners themselves, have been labouring with piecemeal, part-time and, it is not too much to say, haphazard resources to help people whose badness is mixed up with madness, to put it crudely.

The minister has had various proposals, over nine years, to do something about this problem. Nothing is happening. When in the name of God is the minister going to get off his rear end and do something about this scandalous situation?

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM AWARDS

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am pleased to inform the members today that 15 Ontario schools have won national awards from the Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation for the outstanding quality of their physical education programs.

Excellence is one of the key goals of Ontario’s educational system, and the standard set by the association for these awards reveals the high quality of the programs in these schools.

The schools recognized are Lord Elgin School in London, W. Earle Miller Public School in Timmins, Sir John A. Macdonald Secondary School in Hamilton, Regina Public School in Ottawa, Elizabeth Ziegler Elementary School in Waterloo, James McQueen Public School in Fergus, Gordon McGregor Public School in Windsor, Dundas Central Elementary School in Dundas, Centennial Secondary School in Welland, Homelands Senior School in Mississauga, St. Mary Separate School in Elora, Orleans Wood Elementary School in Gloucester and three Metropolitan Toronto schools: Alexander Muir Junior Public School in Scarborough, Wilkinson Junior Public School in Toronto and Chester Public School in East York.

The award-winning programs of the schools had to meet three criteria: quality of program, focus on developing physically active lifestyles for its students and a variety of activities to meet students’ needs.

Physical education is an essential component of Ontario’s education system. Good physical education programs produce well-disciplined, highly motivated students. These assets carry over to their social and academic lives.

I am sure the members will join me today in congratulating the principals and staff of these schools whose efforts played a major role in earning the recognition their schools have received.

RESPONSES

PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM AWARDS

Mr. Allen: I would like to associate both myself and our critic who is absent today, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), and also our caucus with the congratulatory comments that the minister has made with respect to these schools and their outstanding accomplishments in the field of health, physical education and recreation.

It is not too much to say, and many people have made a point of saying, that systematic physical education in our schools is absolutely fundamental to academic accomplishment in the rest of the program that children undertake in their school day. Without it, their academic accomplishment actually falls. This is a critically important question when you come down to what it symbolizes and what it means for the system as a whole.

Also with respect to the minister’s announcement, he will recall that in the recent strike of teachers in the Toronto system one of the major problems was that the lack of specialists and the cutbacks for specialists, including physical education specialists, in the school system was part of the issue that was at stake in terms of teacher preparation time and so on.

What has happened recently in the history of our schools in Ontario is that funds available for special education, and specialists in particular, across the system are making it impossible for the systems to provide the very things that the minister is congratulating people for doing well here and there in the province. To me, this is a very contradictory kind of situation for the minister to be in.

I would have been much happier if the minister had accompanied this announcement and this praise for well-deserving schools and well-deserving programs, teachers and students with a program of funding that would have reinstated physical education specialists at their appropriate level in both elementary and secondary schools across the whole range of the Ontario school system.

Mr. Jackson: It is my pleasure and privilege on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to respond in like terms on behalf the students who are being recognized and honoured in the House today. It has been a long-standing tradition in Ontario to recognize excellence in its students and we are pleased to join with our support.

There is, however, the question of the thousands and thousands of Ontario students who were unable to participate in this program and other programs like it because of the government’s inability to deal in an effective way with the matter of the student drop-outs in our schools.

When we were advised that there was going to be an announcement in the House today by the minister, our party assumed that the minister would be making a statement with respect to the long-awaited Radwanski report, which we understand has been published and has been in the hands of the minister now for some weeks. We believe that is a very pressing and real need in this province, and clearly a commitment that this government made three years ago when it was in opposition that it would deal effectively with that matter.

The real story today is that we are proud to acknowledge the efforts of our students, but by the same token, the real tragedy in Ontario is that we are lacking a focus for the thousands of students who are unable for a variety of reasons to complete their academic opportunities, resulting in an absence of hope for them and the absence of a real strategic plan in this province to help our students who drop out at alarming rates.

I urge the government to bring forward the Radwanski report and to ensure that it has solid programs to ensure that the drop-out rate begins to reverse and repair itself in this province.

1350

STANDING ORDERS

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise now to give you as much opportunity and time as you can to consider what I would like to ask your advice on. It is with regard to standing order 43 which, as you will know, reads, “No motion, or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can be again proposed during the same session.”

I bring that to your attention at this particular time, Mr. Speaker, because you will notice in the Orders and Notices paper today is a fairly lengthy motion being proposed by the government that concludes, “For these reasons, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario opposes this agreement as detrimental to Canada’s sovereignty;” and also suggests the action the House should take, that being to condemn it and to “urge the Parliament of Canada to reject the agreement.”

I think where I am going to get into some difficulty, and I think this chamber and the government will get into some difficulty, is I understand, although I have not been formally told, the intention is to try to pass that this week or before Christmas. At the same time, the House leaders and the whips are involved -- in fact, today -- in deciding upon committee hearings on the whole matter of the free trade agreement. We are looking at scheduling, we are looking at expending money; we are looking at those right now.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, before the debate begins today or some time today, if it is possible, if you would concur with my view that if this resolution is passed, in fact the matter will have been decided and it will be totally out of order for this chamber or one of its committees to be back dealing with the issue in January and February or at any time during the rest of this session.

I would suggest to you it may be in order if you or your officials can look at that so that the House leader and the government do not start down a slippery slope that they really do not want to end up on. I think the facts are as I have pointed them out to you.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully. I am not certain if I can consider the matter prior to the discussion proposed for today, unless the honourable member would want to take the chair during question period.

I appreciate the point made by the member in reference to standing order 43 and I certainly will look at it as soon as I can.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I see the Premier is coming in. I am delighted to have a chance to ask him some questions.

While I was in Washington yesterday attending a congressional symposium organized by Congressman LaFalce and Senator Evans from Washington, Mr. LaFalce and I had an exchange on what I thought the Premier might or might not do. I said I had been trying to figure the Premier out for a very long time, and I was not in a position to guess, but the Premier had said on a number of occasions that Ontario would not implement those sections of the agreement that fell within provincial jurisdiction and referred specifically to the wine question as an example of where Ontario would move. I also said that I felt it would be very difficult for the Premier, given the positions that he has taken, to express any other view, either publicly or privately, with regard to what was taking place and what would take place in the future.

Mr. LaFalce then interrupted me to say that he was surprised to hear me say that, because while he was aware of what the Premier had been saying in public, he said in a private conversation which the Premier had with him, the Premier said, “These things have a way of becoming a permanent feature of the law once they are done and once it is done, it would be very difficult to undo it.” Those were the words that Mr. LaFalce attributed to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the Premier can confirm that that is the conversation he had with Mr. LaFalce.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No. I think the member’s interpretation is correct, probably for the first time that I have known him. With as much respect as I have for him, the member’s interpretation is correct.

I did not have a private conversation. I had a conversation with him and two or three other congressmen. The minister was there, and a variety of officials. So I think the member’s interpretation is absolutely bang on. I congratulate him.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps I could ask the question again. Did the Premier use those words in his conversation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is not my recollection, no.

Mr. B. Rae: I am interested to hear the Premier say that. Can he tell us precisely what is his view with regard to what happens if the agreement is signed on January 2, which we can only anticipate it will be, and if that signing is then followed by legislation at the federal level and in the Congress, can the Premier tell us precisely what steps he plans to take on behalf of Ontario to make sure that once the signing has taken place the implementation does not take place? Can he give the House that indication today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think we have laid this forward in the resolution that will be presented to the House today for discussion. I do not believe we are under any obligation to implement anything that is in provincial legislation. My honourable friend, for example, would want to bring forward the case of the wine, where this agreement would purport to change provincial policies in that regard. I do not believe we are under any legal obligation to implement that. I cannot imagine the federal government would take the position that we are.

We will clearly not be bringing forward legislation to implement those sections. That is one, as I said, that is clearly under provincial jurisdiction, so I hope that clarifies the matter for my honourable friend, because that is the view of the government and that is the view that is put forward in a resolution, that we are not bound to implement things that are under provincial jurisdiction, and we will carry on accordingly.

Mr. B. Rae: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has given a speech, of which I have just received a copy, to the Canadian Bar Association in which he outlines over some nearly 30 pages the very specific concerns he has, presumably speaking on behalf of the government of Ontario, with respect to the fact that governments, both provincial and federal, are being denuded of their power and capacity to intervene in the economy and in the marketplace on behalf of the citizens who have voted for those governments, an argument which I can say I have made on a number of occasions.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us: what is he waiting for in announcing the decision of the government of Ontario to take this deal to the Court of Appeal? What is the holdup? Why is the government not prepared to state categorically that this is in fact what it will do?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member may want to wait for the Attorney General, who will be here shortly, presumably, and who understands it far better than I do, to discuss the legal ramifications. But the precise answer to the question, on the basis of legal advice we have at the moment, is that this treaty, this contract, this accord is not referable and that the odds of any successful application at this time would be very, very low and probably negligible. Where it becomes a constitutional issue potentially is in the implementation legislation which may or may not follow at some time in the future.

That is the answer to my friend’s question. My friend would say that this should be referred immediately to the courts. The legal advice we are getting, and the Attorney General can expand on this further, is that that is not a reasonable option at the moment.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to remind the Premier, and I hope he is in the House for the debate this afternoon, because I am going to go over the number of occasions since November 1985 when the Premier has said: “I cannot act right now. There is one more thing has to happen and then I will finally do something.” He said it in November 1985. He said it through 1986, on every occasion when we were pressing him to take action. On November 4, 1985, he said, “Mr. Speaker, I think you can sleep well tonight” -- and I have no idea whether you did on the night of November 4, Mr. Speaker; perhaps you keep a diary -- ”knowing this province is in very good hands with respect to its protection.” That is what the Premier said in November 1985.

Now we have the deal, we can thank the Premier of Ontario for sitting on his hands for two years and sharing a responsibility for the deal and even at this point not indicating whether he is in fact prepared to launch a constitutional challenge to this deal. That is the reality.

I would like to ask the Premier specifically, why is it that he is refusing now to refer this matter to the Court of Appeal when that is at least one indication that we can deliver to the government of Canada and to the government of the United States that as far as Ontario is concerned this deal is not acceptable? It should have been unacceptable in 1985 and in 1986.

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

Mr. B. Rae: Now that we are heading into 1988, does he not think it is time we sent that signal?

1400

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend has an ideological response to this whole discussion and always has had, and I understand that. What we have said is that we have looked at this deal and we do not think it measures up. We think it is a bad deal for the country. That is the position of this government. He comes at it from a more ideological point of view and I understand that because that is his approach on most of these issues.

I give exactly the same answer to his supplementary as I gave to his first question. On the basis of the legal advice we are getting, the treaty itself is not challengeable. It is clearly within the purview and the jurisdiction of the federal government to make treaties. Where it becomes a constitutional issue in this province is at the point where there is specific implementation legislation.

Mr. B. Rae: If the Premier wants to go through this in some detail, he knows perfectly well that he can refer any question to the Court of Appeal. He can determine what that question will be. He can determine whether that question will be in the form of wording which reflects draft legislation, either federal or provincial. He can determine how long that question is going to be or how short.

The government of Ontario can determine whether it is draft legislation, whether it is mock draft legislation, whether it is made up by the government of Ontario. He can determine the question himself. That is within the purview and the power of the government of Ontario in making a referral to the Supreme Court of Ontario. It is within our jurisdiction to do that. He is not limited in terms of the question he asks.

If what he is saying is that it is in terms of treaty legislation, in terms of specific legislation, why does he not draft the legislation or refer a question which refers the draft legislation and make that the question he refers to the Supreme Court of Ontario, and do it now rather than wait until it is too late? He has already waited until time’s awasting. He has consistently delayed on this question. Why not move now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand, and my friend would want to understand, what he said. He said to make up a piece of legislation --

Mr. B. Rae: I am saying you can refer the question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No, just a minute. He said to make up a piece of legislation, either one that we would bring in that we are not planning on lounging in, or make up one that we think the federal government might bring in; although we have no idea what the federal government will bring in by way of implementation legislation, it can bring in something else.

Mr. B. Rae: Sure you do. Of course, you do.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend may have some idea about that. I will say my honourable friend is quite wrong in that regard; he gets a reference on an issue that does not become --

Mr. B. Rae: You are saying you do not know which legislation they are going to bring in. You have the treaty in front of you. You are playing it so cute and you are blowing it on behalf of Canada. You share that responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend wants to hoot and holler, as he has always done on these matters. I can tell him that I do not believe his approach to handling this thing is the correct one in the circumstances.

Mr. Brandt: It is an interesting debate. My question, as well, is for the Premier with respect to free trade. It is interesting to note that this afternoon the Premier is in full flight on his legal position with respect to the whole question of this government’s options relative to this point.

We have had a number of groups in Ontario that have indicated their support for the agreement. There is the construction industry, which says in today’s Toronto Sun that it will mean more jobs and more work for Ontario construction workers. The investment industry says it will mean a higher level of income for the average man in the street and therefore more savings and more investment opportunities. General Motors, contrary to what the Premier has said with respect to the auto pact and other auto activities, says it will result in more automotive jobs. The retail industry says it will mean lower prices.

In the light of what all those groups are saying about free trade, can the Premier, as the spokesman for the government on behalf of the province of Ontario and the citizens of this province, tell us why in the world he would be against a deal which is ultimately going to mean more jobs, more work and higher pay for the citizens of this province? Why would he oppose that deal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend takes a great deal on faith. Frankly, if I was in that position, that is about all I would have to exist with, it would be faith, in the circumstances. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that it is not easy for us, surrounded as we are by ideologues coming at us from both directions. It is not easy to be a moderate, thoughtful, practical government directing a course for this province surrounded by all this carping. I say to my honourable friend that after our analysis, we believe it is not going to have those results and that we believe the downsides inherent here are far greater than any potential upsides.

We look at the vulnerability of the food processing industry, for example, and the vulnerability of agriculture, where it will probably cost our farmers in Ontario $100 million in terms of farm-gate receipts. We look at the vulnerability of the auto parts industry, which has not benefited; it has been substantially weakened as a result of this. We look at the fact it has not guaranteed access into the United States, which some wanted to achieve. I do not believe my honourable friend’s interpretation of the agreement is correct in terms of securing more access. As a matter of fact, it has enshrined US trade remedy law against us.

It is interesting to note that even the federal committee today, I am told, on this issue said the deal is not much good unless we achieve an exemption from the omnibus trade bill, which could be coming down this year, and as the agreement reads at the moment we will still be subjected to the punitive provisions of the omnibus trade bill if it is passed in 1988.

Thoughtful people are starting to look at this. I recommend that course of action to my honourable friend and he may very well have a different view, rather than just reading press reports on this matter.

Mr. Brandt: It is interesting to note that a lot of the facts the Premier puts forward as being absolutely, totally factual are nothing more than guesses on his part. He has no studies whatever to back up or substantiate any of the points he has made in his response to me.

I ask the Premier, in the light of the fact he has previously indicated in public pronouncements that the free trade agreement will gut the auto pact, why is it then that General Motors says there are going to be new jobs because we are going to encourage more building of components in North America and Canada?

As well, the free trade agreement is supported by --

Hon. Mr. Elston: North America.

Mr. Brandt: North America and Canada.

As well, the FTA is supported by groups-and this is running absolutely contrary to the statements the Premier has made and reiterated time and again --such as the Automotive Industries Association of Canada and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association of Canada, which have a very clear and a very specific interest in securing the best --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: My question --

Mr. Speaker: No. You did place your question. Order. The question was asked earlier.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If I were one of the major North American automobile manufacturers, American-owned, I would support the deal because it allows the industry to be run out of Detroit. That is exactly why I am against the situation.

Of course, it gives to the motor vehicle manufacturers a flexibility they have not had in the past. We know right now the reality is that we do have a unit-cost-of-assembly advantage over the United States, and we are doing very well at that at the moment. If there are fluctuations of the dollar, that will not persist.

My honourable friend, who has raised this matter in this House on other occasions, knows there is an overcapacity of assembly in North America, and he will know there have been substantial closedowns and layoffs in that particular regard. Where Canada has to fight in the future is in terms of the auto parts sector. I would want my honourable friend to stand up and say --

Mr. Brandt: They are in favour of the deal, by the way.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: They are not. I say to my honourable friend, and I do not want to be unkind, he is uninformed. I say to him as kindly as I can, he is uninformed. The auto parts manufacturers are not in favour of this deal, because it removes the safeguards for Canadian production. They know, as Mr. Stronach of Magna International, for example, will tell him, they can just as easily put the auto parts plants in the United States now. Mr. Lonmo is not in favour. Mr. Buganto, who is the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association of Canada, is offside.

I can tell my honourable friend he is wrong, and Canada is going to lose in the area where it has the greatest potential in terms of auto parts manufacturing in the future. I think my honourable friend would want to be fully informed on that before he stands in this House and builds his whole argument on a foundation of sand.

1410

Mr. Brandt: Let me give the Premier a couple of organizations that do not have a head of rice in Detroit.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The Progressive Conservatives.

Mr. Brandt: Yes, I say to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), he is absolutely correct. We do not have a head office in Detroit.

The Premier is well aware that two of the major groups that speak for business in Canada, small business in particular, and also speak for business in Ontario, are the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The Premier knows that over the past six years something like 75 per cent of all new jobs have been created by the small business sector and that this is one of the most dynamic and growing parts of the Ontario economy. The Premier also should be aware, neither of these organizations having a head office in a foreign country, that both the chamber and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business are in full support of the free trade agreement.

Given their support and the support of the industries I mentioned earlier, a whole vast array of industries that have indicated their support for the free trade agreement, how can the Premier continue to take this position which he does, obviously blinded to the facts, telling all those who disagree with him that they are ill-informed or badly informed, when in fact the most ill-informed citizen in this province is the Premier himself? Can he tell me how that is possible?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is one fundamental difference between the two parties. This party is not run by the chamber of commerce, the way my honourable friends of the third party are. We do not consider ourselves the parliamentary wing thereof. Our responsibility, I believe, is to speak for all Canadians.

It is interesting. The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) and myself met with the OBAC group last week, the Ontario Business Advisory Council, 40 or 50 chief executive officers under the aegis of the chamber of commerce, and we had a very serious discussion of this issue. There is no question, as my honourable friend has said, that there are a number of people who are members thereof who are in favour of the deal. It is interesting. A lot of them are multinationals and foreign owned, and I understand where they are coming from in that regard.

But I say to my honourable friend that by no means is the opinion that he expresses unanimous. There were a considerable number of people in that group who agreed with the position that Ontario has taken, that Ontario is reaching beyond just that group that would pretend to present a monolithic view.

I give the member, for example, Mr. Ritchie, the chairman of the Bank of Nova Scotia, who stood up and said, “This is a bad deal,” even though he happens to be a member, probably, of the chamber of commerce, the Business Council on National Issues and a lot of other groups.

There are individual Canadians, a substantial number, even in business, who do not believe this is a deal in the national interest. It may not hurt their business, as in the example of Magna International, because they can just as easily put their new plant in Kentucky as they can in Ontario. But as Canadians, they are standing up and saying, “This is not in the national interest.” That is where I am coming from on this issue.

RESOURCE INDUSTRIES

Mr. Pope: It is obvious in the Premier’s response to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Brandt) that this government is in full retreat with respect to a legal strategy on the free trade agreement The Premier has --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is to which minister?

Mr. Pope: I want to ask a question of the Premier of this province, who has failed in his legal strategy over the past six months, if not two years, vis-à-vis this treaty. It is obvious today from his response to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) that he has lost the internal legal debate on what Ontario’s strategy should be and what its rights would be vis-à-vis this opinion, in spite of what he said to the electors of this province in the fall.

Last March 31, the Premier of this province, in a speech to the Ontario Mining Association, indicated, “Every major US attempt to block Canadian exports has been in the resource area and these cases go to the heart of our ability to achieve economic development in our resource-dependent regions.” On the very next page of that speech, he said, “The main concern of the province would be to continue to press the need for our resource industries to retain unfettered access to the American market.” Can the Premier tell me what steps he has taken since that speech to give the resource industries unfettered access to the American market?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I should tell my honourable friend that we work very closely with the resource industries in this province with respect to trying to achieve unimpeded markets into the United States. There is no question there have been some difficulties in that regard with steel, as my honourable friend will know, and with softwood lumber, which I am sure he will mention in his supplementary. He always does. He comes down once a week out of the far north, hoots and hollers about softwood lumber and leaves again. I just have a little personal advice for my honourable friend. He may want to broaden the range of his questions a little bit if he really has aspirations.

I think if my honourable friend asked the resource industries, they would tell him that Ontario has worked very hard with them to assist in the various lobbying efforts and to try to gain that unimpeded access. This agreement has not achieved unencumbered access. I cannot guarantee there will not be trade interruptions some time in the future without this deal, or with this deal, because the existing US trade remedy law stays exactly as it is. It will be amended over the next year with the omnibus trade bill; and after that if Canada is mentioned, but only on countervail and antidumping. Canada will automatically be included in any other remedies.

Some of the resource industries say, “Look, I am in favour of this deal because we may get a little better atmosphere.” I do not think any of them believe this is going to solve all of their problems. If they do, I am sure my honourable friend will tell me.

Mr. Pope: Given the fact that the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association at its last annual meeting and the softwood lumber industry have indicated to the Premier on numerous occasions their concern with access to the American market, the fact that it equates to community economic stability in the resource regions of this province and in Toronto, and given the fact that they feel there has to be some improvement in the trading relationship between Ontario and Canada and their largest customer, the United States, what steps has the Premier taken which he promised in this speech --never mind his discussions -- to help the lumber industry and the pulp and paper industry of this province to get better access to the American market?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: One of the things we did was stand up very clearly on the question of the softwood lumber tax. When the member’s friends in Ottawa decided to impose this tax, we believed it was a completely wrong approach in the matter. The member will be interested to note that our government signed the government-to-government agreement with respect to that tax. That tax is now enshrined for ever.

It seems to me that if I were negotiating this free trade deal, the first thing I would have said was: “Look, get that softwood lumber tax off the table. We have to get rid of that.” Rather, our government was hoodwinked, as I said, into creating a government-to-government agreement that will stay there for a very long time into the future. That gives one some insights into the quality of the negotiators we have in Ottawa.

Mr. Pope: It gives me some insight into the Premier, who on September 26, 1986, authorized the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources to agree to the softwood lumber tax. He has been trying to mislead the people of this province ever since about the fact that he signed that deal. Ever since, he has tried to deny it, but it is the truth. He would not tell us in the House, but it is the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Pope: Now we have the same government publicly saying it will not go along with the free trade agreement and privately setting the stage to implement the agreement. We want to know what the Premier is doing to get better access for the resource industries of this province to protect jobs in Toronto and the rest of the province. He will not tell us, because he has done nothing. When are the government members going to get off their collective duff over there and work for Canadian industry and get us access to the American market?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend has such a way of putting his questions. If he asks people in the industry, they will tell him they get enormous co-operation from this government, in working on those problems that we jointly have, from a very highly respected set of ministers.

1420

As I said to my honourable friend, I think he is mistaken in this regard. On the one hand, he accused me of being in favour of the deal; on the other hand, he accused me of being against the deal; so I think my honourable friend will want to hone his own position on that. This deal will not solve the problems that have been presented in the past.

Mr. Jackson: What are you doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are working very closely with them. There is no magic solution to this, there is no one thing that is going to solve all of these problems, but I think that Ontario, in conjunction with the industry, has very forcefully put forward the position and, with any luck, in the future it will be a less heated situation than it is now.

FUNERAL SERVICES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I want to remind him that since July 1985 he and the previous Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations have been sitting on a report of their investigator, Tom Turner, a report which is a major indictment of the practices of the commercial cemeteries in this province.

For example, Mr. Turner says: “My investigation left no doubt in my mind that in most cases I was purposely misled, intimidated, lied to and, considering the psychological distress conveyed in my role as a consumer purchasing at a time of need, preyed upon in general techniques used by the cemeteries in the sale of cemetery supplies, which were often found to be unfair and deceptive. Specifically, the sales techniques used by the representatives of Arbor Capital Resources Inc. verged on despicable.”

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Swart: Given that kind of situation and given the urging by both consumer groups and good operators in the bereavement industry, why has the minister not taken a single step to legislatively correct these horrendous practices and stop the exploitation of bereaved families?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member refers to the Turner report, which he suggests is suppressed and then reads portions of it, which I find interesting. He will know the report was an investigative report which was done a year and a half or two years ago by an individual who is no longer with the ministry.

He will also know, because he asked my predecessor a number of questions during the standing committee on administration of justice deliberations on the estimates of the ministry, it is not the view of this government, for a number of reasons, to release the report. It is an investigatory report.

Second, and I say this quite candidly to the honourable member and to other members who are aware of the existence of the report, it is my view, and this was a view of my predecessor, that this is also not a very good report. It is not a very professional report and, frankly, it is outdated.

All that being said, l must say -- and I anticipated, seeing the honourable member’s resolution now in Orders and Notices, that there might be a question on the bereavement sector -- I certainly share some of the concerns enunciated by the honourable member that a number of reforms need to take place.

We are currently reviewing possible legislative initiatives. As the members will know, there is one bill already before the House in teens of protection for consumers in prepaid funeral situations. I would expect and hope that in the not-too-distant future we will be able to address other important issues in this so-called bereavement sector.

Mr. Swart: I must say those of us on this side of the House are getting a little tired of hearing the minister say he has some sympathy with the allegations made by Mr. Turner, but it is not a very good report. The minister uses exactly the same lines as the previous minister did.

One year ago the then minister sloughed off my questions on this matter in the justice committee by saying the report lacked sufficient facts and details to adequately support any firm conclusions.” He stated he would not be releasing it, but said, “It is a situation that is being addressed in an ongoing manner in my ministry.” Yes, for two and a half years. Because his ministry has done nothing, I am releasing Tom Turner’s report. Let the public judge its implications.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Swart: Why is it that, to date, he will not even meet with certain reputable segments of the industry, such as the monument builders and the Ontario Funeral Service Association and certain cemetery organizations? Specifically, will he now give a commitment to bring in legislation conforming to my private member’s resolution, which he has read, to separate clearly the ownership and operation into the three appropriate sections -- funeral services, interment cemeteries and monument builders?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I find it interesting that the honourable member would choose to release an investigatory report, a report which is not up to anybody’s standards of adequacy in terms of its professionalism. It is up to my friend whether he wishes to release that kind of a report, but I would suggest to him, as kindly as I might, that is a somewhat unprofessional attitude to take.

As recently as last Friday, I met with funeral directors and a number of monument builders in my own riding. My staff has had a number of meetings, and I expect we will have additional meetings in the new year. Those meetings are the first step towards the kind of legislative response that I hope we can come forward with in the not-too-distant future.

I will certainly, as I always do, take into consideration the views of my honourable friend contained in his resolution. Perhaps when the legislative changes come forward, he will find at least some of his views reflected in them.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question to the Premier. Articles 401 and 702 of the free trade agreement provide for phased elimination of tariffs over a 10-year period with the exception of the snapback provisions on the fruit and vegetable sectors.

Article 704 provides for exemption from restrictions under meat import laws. This is creating free trade in veal, pork and beef. Can the Premier be against such a progressive and expanded market situation? Will he please explain that to the meat producers?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have done an analysis and we believe the net farm gate receipts in Ontario will be down about $100 million overall. If we look at the various commodity groups, I cannot deny that this is a bad thing for the cattlemen and for the meat producers. It is not a good thing for the grain producers, for our horticultural industries or for our tender fruit industries. There are, in a sense, winners and losers, but the overall net loss is significantly greater than the gains.

Mr. Villeneuve: That is not a very good explanation to the meat producers. If this government continues as it has done in the past, it may pass this on to the municipalities to solve.

Article 710 specifies that parties retain their General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rights and obligations -- and I emphasize rights and obligations -- with respect to all members of agricultural trade and not specifically dealt with in the agreement. This has the effect of protecting federal and provincial supply-managed marketing boards. Is the Premier against that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What we believe will happen is that we will see an erosion of the protection that supply managing now provides over a long period of time. We are seeing a situation where there are not only problems in the agricultural area, but probably the most significant area of harm is in food processing.

As a result of that, we will see our farmers’ capacity to produce affected. Here is the problem my honourable friend will be aware of. Supply management creates generally higher prices for commodities and that creates higher prices for our food processors, so what this is going to do is drive our food processors out of business and, as a result, our farmers will follow not too far after that. There is a vulnerability my friend has not thought about.

I am not saying that perhaps we will not export a little more beef into the United States, but we will probably see a situation where every food commodity produced in this country with a shelf life of more than three weeks will be produced in the United States. That is probably what we will see with the coming down of tariffs and exposed vulnerability in this area. My friend should be aware that there are 84,000 direct jobs in the food-processing industry. This is probably the most vulnerable industry we have. If they go, our farmers will go not far thereafter.

I say to my honourable friend who purports to speak for the farm community and wants, I know, to represent their best interests, that he should get into this and he will find out that any possible short-term gains for the red meat producers are going to be far outweighed by the losses across the broad spectrum of the industry.

1430

STUDENT HOUSING

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait until the conversation concludes.

Mr. Owen: The original charter for community colleges in this province allowed for on-campus student housing only in northern Ontario and not at all for southern Ontario. That was appropriate at the time for the particular needs of post-secondary school education. However, in the last 20 years, the programs at the community colleges have drastically changed. Many of the community colleges have developed a certain expertise and are recognized across the province or even across Canada for that expertise in the held of knowledge. Now we have students coming to these campuses from all over the province, sometimes from all across Canada. In Barrie, for example, the out-of-town student enrolment is in excess of 60 per cent.

My question to the minister is, what is being proposed to address this problem which seems to be accelerating every year in the degree that it causes problems for these students seeking housing on these campuses?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I thank the honourable member for his question. He has quite correctly identified the original policy and it continues to be current ministry policy, which provides that only northern colleges may build student residences. The only exception to this was made in 1973 when nursing programs, with their attached residences, were transferred to colleges.

The member again is quite correct that the original mandate of the colleges was seen to be serving the students of the immediate community, and therefore, this policy of providing residences only in northern communities where they were serving a larger community was developed.

We share his recognition that because of the expertise of the colleges, they are attracting students from beyond the immediate community, and because of this recognition the ministry has initiated a review of the need for college residences. The review will be looking at the operation of existing residences, the need for residences for colleges which do not currently have them, and as well, the funding implications. I expect the results of that review shortly.

Mr. Owen: Georgian College, for example, has campuses at Orillia, Penetanguishene and Owen Sound, but the largest one is in Barrie. Barrie already has a zero vacancy rate. Every August and September, it is like a disaster scene as the students come in. Can the minister tell us, will any help be there and available for this coming summer as we approach the new school year? What is proposed to help on this critical issue with community colleges?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I acknowledge that there are no easy short-term solutions to problems of student housing. In the absence of residences in some colleges, clearly the availability of student housing relates to the housing situation in a particular community. In discussions with the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosěk) and in ongoing discussions between our two ministries, we are dealing with issues that are related to student housing.

In the case of Barrie in particular, it is my understanding that 100 nonprofit units have been allocated and that construction is to begin shortly. I trust that in the short term this will relieve some of the pressures, both for students and the general population in that community.

TIMBER CUTTING RATES

M. Pouliot: J’aurais une question pour le ministre des Richesses naturelles.

Is the Minister of Natural Resources aware that MacMillan Bloedel, which owns and operates the waferboard plant in Thunder Bay, has recently served notice to 150 independent work suppliers that the price they will be getting for work, starting in January, will be reduced by 10 per cent even though the price has remained rather static for the past four years?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, I am somewhat aware of the problem. I must say that the member for Lake Nipigon has put forward his concerns about district cutting licensees in the past in relation with some of the people they were supplying. I must say we did resolve that problem some time ago in one particular dispute. I suppose, though, that in this one I am somewhat aware of the company and the people who are cutting over the licence negotiating some kind of agreement right now. I am not absolutely certain just where it is, but of course, I am always prepared to examine the circumstances and share them with the member.

Mr. Pouliot: The minister excels in dealing with generic, but maybe we can do this together and perhaps be a little more specific. He very well should be, for his ministry ordained several years ago nothing short of a monopoly and a cartel, in that MacMillan Bloedel did obtain first refusal on all poplar cut around Thunder Bay, therefore making 150 people captive of their pricing policy.

I would like to remind the minister that in the third quarter of 1987 -- and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) a few minutes ago reminded us of the tremendous co-operation enjoyed with paper companies-indeed, $82.7 million compared to $31.7 million, and the minister helped make it that way. Yet the cutters are asked to take a cut effective January 1, of some 10 per cent, while those people are turning out record profit. Social justice is not being done. What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As I said before, I am very pleased that the member for Lake Nipigon has come before on behalf of third-party people. I suppose that where we were initially was to guarantee, because of the licences, to guarantee wood supply over that area. In order to build any kind of mill, we would have to guarantee a wood supply, which is basically our number one priority.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: You can say that. But the fact of the matter is that because we are in charge of that wood supply, we could be helpful to those people the member is describing. I am fully prepared to examine that to the degree that we can participate.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Yesterday I tried unsuccessfully to get the minister to understand his responsibility in the situation he has created with respect to the allocation of pupil spaces in this province under Bill 30. He seems unable to understand that separate school boards have a responsibility to their local supporters to get the very best deal possible. The minister has told them there is no money to build new schools. He has publicly stated that transfers of whole school buildings fluent the public board to the separate school board are no great hardship and that sharing is not a viable option.

Then the minister has an arbitrator’s report which upholds what he stated publicly, that sharing is not a viable option. Whether he will admit it or not, he has told every separate school board in Ontario that whole-building transfers from the public board are the very best deals that they can get for their kids.

If the minister were a separate school trustee in Ontario today under the conditions which he, as minister, has created, could he in all good conscience do less for his supporters than to refuse sharing and push through the whole process to try to get a public school building transferred for his kids?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I have noted with interest over the past few days how the member for Burlington South is quite insistent that we abandon the principles of Bill 30, which were developed over a course of time through a process of consensus within this Legislature. I want to assure the member that we in this government indeed do respect the principles of this legislation. We have encouraged school boards, both public and separate, to negotiate in good faith in the best interests of the communities they represent. Frankly, I do believe that trustees throughout this province are in fact dealing with these delicate issues responsibly and in good faith.

Mr. Jackson: The minister persists in not taking responsibility for what he himself, as minister, has done. Yesterday I brought to his attention the situation in Metro Toronto, where the separate board is being advised to jettison local negotiations in order to get to arbitration sooner.

Today I would like to bring to his attention the situation in Frontenac, where the two boards have been sharing a school. Since he interfered with the Hamilton-Wentworth arbitration, and after that arbitrator upheld his public statements, the Frontenac-Lennox and Addington County Roman Catholic Separate School Board had notified the public board that it no longer wishes to share and is now asking for a whole-building transfer.

1440

We have the situation in Hamilton-Wentworth, we have the situation in Metro Toronto yesterday, now we have a situation in Frontenac and soon we will see similar situations in Sudbury, in Renfrew and Lincoln counties. Why is the minister refusing to take appropriate action to undo the damage, which he himself has done, before the situation gets worse, not only in Hamilton but also is repeated across Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was asked.

Hon. Mr. Ward: As I have indicated to the member on many occasions, certainly I am doing everything within my power to encourage the parties to negotiate in good faith and to arrive at consensual solutions. I know that for his part the member for Burlington South is doing what he can to inflame the situation and encourage the intervention and the abandonment of the principles of Bill 30. Quite frankly, I am disappointed that his party would now choose to take that position.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Dietsch: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister would know of the importance of the automotive industry to Ontario and particularly to certain areas, such as St. Catharines and the Niagara region. Now that the legal text for the free trade agreement is finally available after such a long wait, I would like to ask the minister what the ramifications are for the automotive industry, which is a major, significant employer to the riding of St. Catharines-Brock and therefore a major concern to the residents of those areas.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: When we saw the elements of the agreement, it was our determination that the auto pact had been gutted. Now that we have had a chance to see the legal text, the two significant changes that were made in the text are the CAMI General Motors-Suzaki plant was included -- it was grandfathered -- and the other was the elimination of the non-US-export duty remission programs.

That is really a good-news-bad-news-bad-news situation. It is good news for the people of Ingersoll-Woodstock in that their plant is going to continue. The bad news is that by implication the fact that it had to be grandfathered means that it will not happen again. The other thing of course is with the duty remission program for non-US imports, that is a worrisome thing for third-country manufacturers and it is something that we are examining very carefully.

Mr. Dietsch: The minister will know that the ramifications to the auto industry are much wider than just to the North American concept. What is being done to find out what the non-North-American car makers’ plans are in respect to free trade?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Members will know that certain concerns were expressed over the period from October 4 to the other day when we got the final text. All I can say to the member is that our agent general in Tokyo, Tim Armstrong, is in constant communication. The latest word that I had from him is that the third-country manufacturers have just got a copy of the legal text. They have not had a chance to analyse it. He will be communicating with me as soon as he has a reaction from them.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister is aware of the closing of the Frankel Steel plant in Milton, which will leave over 300 workers without a job and have devastating effects on them, their community and their families. The workers in the community were given no advance notice until the announcement of the closure in mid-September and the company also did not discuss with them any future possibilities to avoid a shutdown.

In response to the correspondence from the local Steelworkers union, the minister stated, in a letter dated October 26, 1987, “It is the government’s view that Bill 85, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1987, passed by the Legislature and now proclaimed law. is the correct response at this time.”

Bill 85 is obviously inadequate, as we said. When will the minister table amendments that provide for a minimum of six months’ notice of plant closures and a full public justification process?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Hamilton East has made known his views on plant justification and his view of what Bill 85 should have contained on many occasions and again today. The situation at Frankel Steel is not one that any of us rejoice in, as a number of jobs were lost. I set out in my answer to the correspondence that I received our view on Bill 85 and the protection afforded under there. Really, I do not have anything further to say than that.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is a totally inadequate bill and the minister is satisfied with it.

The minister is no doubt aware that the number of workers laid off through plant closures is higher in 1987 than it was for the same period in 1982, when we had the recession on. There is no recession to blame. Companies are rationalizing to prepare for free trade.

Despite overall profits of $2.7 million in the first six months of 1987, the Harris Steel Group, owner of Frankel Steel, is getting out of structural steel. In Harris’s annual report for 1986, the chairman said, “I am fully convinced that a successful conclusion to the government’s initiative on free trade with the Americans would be a boon to all of Canada but especially to the heartland of Ontario.” I want the minister to tell that to the workers at Frankel Steel in the community of Milton.

Can the minister explain why he says he is opposed to free trade but is not willing to bring in legislation to cope with the hardship caused to workers and their communities by corporations preparing for free trade?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The fact that there have been some more plant closings and layoffs, as my friend the member for Hamilton East mentions, is only half of the reality in Ontario. The other half of the reality, of course, is the hundreds and thousands of new jobs that have been created. Whether or not we are talking about a free trade agreement, the reality is that in Ontario we are going through a rather dramatic industrial restructuring, and that means that sometimes plants will close. Hopefully, in an economy that is well and effectively managed, far more jobs will be created through that restructuring process.

In the case of Frankel Steel, as in other plant closures, through my ministry, with the assistance of the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) through the Transitions program and from the federal Department of Employment and Immigration, assistance is given to those workers.

We will continue to have some plant closures. It is our belief that the kind of justification legislation that member and that party believes in would be inappropriate within this context. We have seen, with Bill 85, assistance provided for workers that allows for the industrial restructuring to go on but provides appropriate severance pay and termination pay in virtually all cases.

MINISTER’S ROLE IN TRANSMISSION LINE DECISION

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Premier. Under section 8 of Bill 1, the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, there is a requirement for a member of cabinet to disclose the general nature of a conflict of interest and withdraw from a meeting without voting or participating in consideration of the matter. A further part of that section puts forward a procedure whereby a member of cabinet would have another member of cabinet act in his stead.

One of the glaring problems that has been pointed out by the recent example when dealing with the alleged conflict of interest of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is that there is no public notice that one of the members of cabinet might have disclosed a conflict of interest or might have appointed another cabinet minister to act in his stead.

Will the government accept an amendment in the committee to amend this section to allow the public to know when in fact a cabinet minister has declared a conflict of interest or has appointed another minister to act in his stead when there is a conflict?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with the amendment I gather the honourable member wants to put forward. I am sure the committee will discuss any thoughtful amendment put forward that is going to enhance the provisions of the bill, but I am not in a position to comment on that now.

Mr. Sterling: Under that same section, as I mentioned before, it says, “A member of the executive council who has reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has a conflict of interest in a matter requiring the member’s decision shall request another member of the executive council to perform the member’s duties....”

The Premier has heard my allegations with regard to the Attorney General and he heard the concerns of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) yesterday with regard to the capacity of the Attorney General to stand as the minister carrying Bill 1 in the hearings that are going to take place in early January.

If in fact the commissioner that the Premier has appointed under this act prior to the act’s coming in place has not made a decision with regard to my complaint yesterday, will the Premier ask the Attorney General to step aside and have another member of cabinet stand in his place?

1450

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member has raised this matter on two or three occasions, and it is easy to stand in here and allege conflict of interest. That was a matter that was dealt with some time ago, a couple of years ago. I do not believe, as I told my friend, there is a conflict of interest, so presumably we have a different point of view.

That being said, he has every right, and I encourage him to do so, to send that complaint to the commissioner to get his readjudication of the issue. But as I said, I do not think it is helpful to the process of government that every time anybody in the opposition or anywhere else stands up and alleges a conflict of interest -- be it well-based or ill-founded, or be it because of some other political reason we hold up the process of government.

I am very happy to have all of our decisions exposed. I am happy to make it all available for everyone to see. I think the bill is constructed as a thoughtful and sensitive one. Now, if there are better solutions to it, I am willing to listen to those, as I am sure the members of the committee are.

Mr. Sterling: But he is under investigation under the bill.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member continues to make this point. I think it is so easy for the member or anyone else to stand up and allege these things, whether they are correct or incorrect. One of the things we try to do when an honourable member makes an allegation is to take it seriously.

Mr. Sterling: It is a serious charge.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the allegation is not well-founded -- as I do not believe it is, because it was reviewed a couple of years ago -- then we just happen to have a serious difference of opinion.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Over the weekend one of my constituents brought to my attention a matter which deals with him as an employer of a small business in a large shopping plaza. Pursuant to the terms of the lease in the shopping plaza, the small businessmen are required to stay open on any day in which business can be lawfully carried out.

Under Bill 51, we have carefully provided for protection for employees not being required to work on days such as Sunday. Does the minister have any plans, or would he consider plans, for doing the same thing for employers of small firms in terms of allowing them not to observe the terms of their lease, perhaps by inserting a “notwithstanding” clause in the legislation, and allow them to have the same equal opportunity that employees have of whether they wish to work on Sunday or not?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Brampton South raises a very good point, of course, and it has to do with the position that some small business owners, retailers, have, generally in indoor malls. I think he had a particular constituent who is raising the issue where the mall is going to be staying open but that particular employer does not want to work.

It is not really a matter that ought to be dealt with under Bill 51. Bill 51 is a simple and direct bill which affords greater protection to workers who are exercising the right not to work on days when their employers cannot be open in any event. But I think it is something that, as the government crafts its policy on Sunday openings and provides enhanced protection for workers, we ought to take into consideration. I want to thank my friend from Brampton South for raising that matter in this context.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Owen: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, signed by 2,750 citizens of Barrie:

“We, the undersigned, believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

Mr. Cleary: I have a petition of some 2,600 signatures addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from the chamber of commerce, municipal leaders, merchants, clergy and, in general, the people in my riding, asking that the government rethink its position with respect to retail business holidays.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition from 373 residents of Sault Ste. Marie. It states as follows:

“Given that the projected enrolment at St. John school in Sault Ste. Marie indicates steady growth, that the present facilities are inadequate to accommodate the present enrolment and that the conditions are not conducive to a healthy learning environment or to maximum use by students, we ask the Minister of Education to approve funding for the proposed extension to St. John separate school.”

I hope the government will act on this petition.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Mr. McClelland be substituted for Mr. Van Horne on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Mr. Van Horne be deleted from the order of precedence for private members’ public business and that all members of the Liberal caucus listed thereafter be advanced by one place in their turn.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved first reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Just very briefly, the bill I have introduced today provides for a third form of contract for continuing education teachers. Recently, the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that a contract is required for members of this group and we have determined that the most appropriate means of accommodating this ruling is the provision of a third form of contract with school boards in Ontario.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. B. Rae moved first reading of Bill 71, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. B. Rae: I have a brief explanation. This is the same bill that was introduced by my colleague the former member for Sudbury East. It was known under a previous title as Bill 149. I am reintroducing the bill in order to encourage a debate in the House on this question of health and safety and to dramatize, in a quiet but thoughtful way, the fact that the government has not yet seen fit to introduce such legislation.

1500

The bill makes it clear that workers have the right to refuse work that is unsafe; it expands the role of committees in the workplace, which we think have a very substantial role to play; it calls for the establishment of committees in many workplaces that right now do not have such committees; it looks in particular to new sectors of the economy where committees have not yet been established; and basically, it insists that since it is workers themselves who are being asked to pay the price in terms of their health and safety for the failure of management to clean up the workplace, we think it is important to give workers greater power over their own lives and over their own health and safety.

SIMCOE DAY ACT

Mr. McLean moved first reading of Bill 72, An Act respecting Simcoe Day.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McLean: The purpose of the bill is to name the third Monday in February Simcoe Day in honour of John Graves Simcoe, who was appointed first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada on September 12, 1791, and who convened the first Legislative Assembly and established the capital of the province at York, now Toronto.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McLean moved first reading of Bill 73, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McLean: The purpose of the bill is to suspend superannuation allowances while the person entitled thereto is receiving a salary, fee or compensation from the province.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McLean moved first reading of Bill 74, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McLean: The purpose of the bill is to suspend retirement allowances while a person entitled thereto is receiving compensation for acting as a member of a board, commission or other body, holding office at the nomination of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES ACT

Mr. Cureatz moved first reading of Bill 7S, An Act to establish the Municipal Council Retirement Fund and to provide Retirement Allowances to Municipal Councillors.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cureatz: The bill establishes a retirement allowance fund to provide pensions to municipal councillors in respect of their service as councillors. Persons who are municipal councillors when or after this act comes into force are removed from the operation of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act.

POLLS

Hon. Mr. Conway: Today I want to indicate that I have laid on the table a very substantial volume of paper which represents public opinion research; namely, a public opinion poll done for the Ministry of Natural Resources having to do with Fire Prevention Week behaviour, etc., and a second poll done for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food concerning the Ontario food processing industry.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Conway: Furthermore, I would simply like to note that I will be tabling this afternoon the answer to question 25, the response to petition P-4 and the interim answer to question 26, all of which stand in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for final sitting day of December].

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Brandt moved, pursuant to standing order 37(a), that the business of the House be set aside so that the House might debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the need for this House to endorse the proposed Canada-United States trade agreement, an agreement which, while fully protecting the sovereignty and unique culture of Canada and the right of this nation to determine and implement its own social and regional development policies, will provide for more secure access to Ontario’s most important export market, thereby creating enhanced opportunities for economic and employment growth and the reduction of regional disparities both within the province and throughout the nation.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we continue, I would remind all members that previously the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) raised a point. I feel at this particular time the point raised was possibly a hypothetical question, because the matter has not really come before the House. As you are aware, we have now discussed this matter, and the question that the Speaker will put at the end of the first round of discussions is, shall the debate proceed? I may have to look at it further after that time.

To my knowledge, this motion was received at 11:23 this morning and therefore was in time, according to the standing orders. I will listen to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) and a representative for each other party for up to five minutes, stating why this debate should proceed.

Mr. Brandt: I rise to speak to the motion which I have introduced today calling for an emergency debate to express the belief my party has that we need to endorse the free trade agreement signed by the governments of Canada and the United States. I do not take this step lightly. It is not a procedural move, nor is it a move to score political points. Instead, I want to put this as clearly and succinctly as possible. I believe that we, as elected members whose responsibility it is to speak for the good of our constituents, are not fulfilling that responsibility by not debating this motion at this particular time.

I believe that by taking such a negative and obstructionist view on the free trade agreement as that articulated on many occasions by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), we are in danger of isolating ourselves and our province from the rest of Canada and we are in danger of allowing emotional, illogical and ill-founded statements to prevent us from proceeding with a trade agreement that will be not only to our advantage but to the advantage of our children for generations to come.

Earlier today, in a question to the Premier, I listed some of the groups that support the free trade agreement, groups from all across the country and from literally every walk of life. Those groups and the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia -- six provinces in all -- have indicated that they are in support of this agreement, and I believe they have the interests of their citizens and of this country at heart.

1510

They all have legal opinions and opinions from their economists and officials, who are equal in expertise and experience to those employed by the government of Ontario. Yet these provinces are unanimous on two items that relate to the agreement: one, that the free trade agreement will be of benefit to their respective provincial populations and, by benefiting the provinces, will benefit the country; two, and this is the point I feel we have to address as a Legislature, that the one province that will gain the most is Ontario.

Let me repeat that: The province that will gain the most is our own province here in Ontario.

My purpose in moving this motion is very clear. I believe we need a debate to clear the air. We need a debate to cut though the rhetoric and to get to the facts as they relate to this agreement. There are a great number of groups in the majority of governments that I have indicated earlier who all believe that they will benefit from a free trade agreement. I believe it is incumbent upon this Legislature to look at the facts they bring forward and the views they have expressed and to reconsider our perspective on this issue.

The Premier will say that the legislative committee struck to tour the province on this agreement has that type of mandate. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the Legislature that that committee does not have that sort of mandate.

We all know the Liberal members on the committee will do their duty and routinely vote against the free trade agreement in spite of any arguments that are brought forward to the contrary. We all know that and we have experienced the way that committee operates, which is why we need this debate now, so that members, for perhaps the last time in this Legislature, can stand up freely and give their views, their opinions and their beliefs in regard to the free trade initiative.

If the Premier allowed them, I wonder how many of his caucus would consider the weight of public opinion on the other side of this issue and say to themselves, “Maybe, just maybe, those other folks are right and we might be wrong,” which I know they are. I wonder if the Premier would even dare to take that chance. That is what this motion allows, a full and thorough debate on an issue that is of importance to the wellbeing of every citizen of Ontario and every citizen of Canada.

Mr. Laughren: Before I launch into the substantial aspects of the question before us, I want to question the interpretation of 37(a) of the standing orders in which one matter can be set aside and an emergency debate can replace a substantive motion dealing with the very same subject matter as the emergency debate. I find that very strange. Of course, I am not challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

I find it more than passing strange, however, that the Conservative Party has moved this emergency debate, given the fact that there was a very substantive motion before the House this afternoon dealing with this very same issue. As a matter of fact, we can move amendments and the Conservatives can move amendments on the substantive motion put by the government, and it is our intention to move a substantive amendment to the motion put by the government House leader. I find it distressing that the third party would move this emergency debate, considering that the substantive motion was already before the House and the third party’s motion will not allow us to vote on it. It is an emergency debate that has no resolution at the end of the day.

The government’s substantive motion, with the opportunity to make amendments, also allows the opportunity for a vote. I do not understand why the Conservative Party wishes to avoid a vote on this very substantive matter. It puzzles me that they would want to avoid that. I would have thought they would want to stand in their places and say, “We are proud of our position on this matter and we shall vote against it.” I do not understand why the Conservative Party has decided it does not wish to confront this matter with a vote. It is totally beyond me why they wish to avoid a vote.

I can say that we intend to amend the motion put by the government because we do not think it does enough, and that is the main reason we are opposing the Conservative Party emergency debate. We know it is not possible to amend the Conservative emergency-debate motion and we know we can amend the government motion.

As a matter of fact, when I look at the Conservative motion, which says, “a matter of urgent public importance, that being the need for this House to endorse the proposed Canada-US trade agreement,” I cannot imagine myself engaging in an emergency debate to endorse the free trade agreement worked out by Simon Reisman and his friends with Ronald Reagan and his friends.

It is without any hesitation whatsoever that this party will be opposing the emergency debate put by the Conservative leader.

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is always a pleasure to participate in a debate that is initiated by my friend the leader of the Conservative Party and spoken to by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren).

I just want to say that, having listened to the two previous speakers, on this occasion I am rather more persuaded by the member for Nickel Belt than by my colleague the member for Sarnia. I just want to indicate, in a quiet and dispassionate way, why that is so.

First, the Premier indicated earlier in the week --in fact, yesterday -- that we would be having the opportunity to debate a resolution on the free trade question later this week. That was done in consideration of the concern that I think is felt on all sides about the very significant discussions that have taken place between the government of Canada and the government of the United States.

It is somewhat peculiar, really, to see this emergency-debate request from the third party today, having heard yesterday from the Premier that an opportunity would be provided this week to debate the question. I think the member for Nickel Belt is quite right when he asks us to reflect upon what it is this request seeks to do.

The member for Sarnia, the leader of the Conservative Party, has moved to set aside the ordinary business of the House today, which is to discuss a resolution, a very significant and substantive resolution put by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) to talk about the free trade agreement, so that we can do what? So that we can talk about the free trade agreement.

I think the member for Nickel Belt is quite right in drawing our attention to the peculiarity of that position being advanced by the Conservative Party. I think the Treasury critic for the official opposition is right as well in pointing out that the debate that the government wishes on the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is better because it allows for a number of things. It allows for the kind of amendment that the member referred to, it allows for a resolution and, quite frankly, it allows the leader of the third party to set out his case for a period longer than 10 minutes.

I have been around this assembly for six years. I have heard the member for Sarnia orate on a number of occasions, and my experience is that the leader of the Conservative Party, generally speaking, needs more than 10 minutes to build to the great strength of his case. Under his own proposal, we would be denied the opportunity to hear the leader of the Conservative Party make his case for any more than 10 minutes. I do not think that would be fair to the leader of the Conservative Party.

I just want to say in conclusion that the government views the debate about the trade question as a very important debate. We want to hear from members. I want to hear from at least the leader of the Conservative Party for longer than 10 minutes.

1520

Mr. Brandt: You have that promise.

Mr. B. Rae: Now you’re asking for it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am not necessarily saying to the Leader of the Opposition that I want the contribution of the leader of the Conservative Party to go greatly beyond 10 minutes, but like the member for Nickel Belt, I want this debate to come to a conclusion, a resolution. If the members opposite wish to amend the resolution, I will be interested to see that as well.

It is for those reasons that the government does not favour the motion standing in the name of the leader of the Conservative Party, though we are very anxious to get on with the debate on the substantive motion standing in the name of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, during which time we will have the opportunity to hear the leader and the membership of the third party set out their views and state their case.

Mr. Speaker: We have now covered standing orders 37(a), 37(b) and 37(c). We come to standing order 37(d). Pursuant to this standing order, I can only put the question, shall the debate proceed?

The House divided on whether the debate should proceed, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Eves, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Marland, McCague, McLean, Pollock, Pope, Runciman, Sterling, Villeneuve.

Nays

Adams, Allen, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Brown, Bryden, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Charlton, Chiarelli, Cleary. Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins. Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Grier, Haggerty, Hampton, Hart, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, Laughren, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella;

Mackenzie, Mahoney, Mancini, Martel, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Morin-Strom, Munro, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neill, Y., Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Philip, E., Phillips, G., Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Pouliot, Rae, B., Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sullivan, Swart, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wildman, Wilson, Wrye.

Ayes 15; nays 95.

STANDING ORDERS

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Earlier today, to give as much notice as I could, I had asked you to consider the question. I realize I am not asking you to make a ruling, because the ruling would not come until after the motion that we are debating is presumably passed. I under-stand that is the intent of the government, and I have no delusions as to the numbers game around here; sooner or later, some time or other, in some year or other, this will pass.

I guess what I am asking for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, is whether in fact we should be planning a committee to be touring this province and going ahead with that scheduling and meetings and expense and what not in view of the fact that it will be asked to deal with substantially the same issue. According to Beauchesne, that may not be done by a legislature in the same sitting.

I wondered whether you have given some thought to that, Mr. Speaker, and can give this Legislature some direction as to what occurs if this should pass.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member gave notice on the same point earlier today. I have had a little time to start considering the matter that the honourable member has brought before the House. At the present time, I have not made up my mind and I will certainly consider it at the appropriate time.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved resolution 8:

That in the opinion of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario the proposed trade agreement between Canada and the United States fails to address Canada’s needs and goals, while making significant concessions which could prove costly to Canadians. Specifically:

The proposed agreement fails to secure access to the US market for Canadian goods and services and provides no assurance of fairer treatment for Canadian exporters. It provides Canadians with virtually no relief from the US trade laws and regulations that are being used to harass them.

Under the proposed agreement, Canadian exporters could still be penalized in the United States as a result of Canadian policies and programs to promote industrial development, reduce regional disparities and manage our natural resources.

This agreement would relinquish our ability to pursue an independent energy policy in order to ensure security of supply or enhance regional development.

This agreement would significantly reduce our ability to ensure that Canadians benefit from US investment and proposed takeovers of Canadian-owned firms.

This agreement would undercut safeguards which have ensured the existence of a dynamic Canadian auto industry and reduce Canada’s ability to attract offshore auto industry investment.

This agreement would eliminate tariffs simultaneously in both countries, despite the fact that Canadian tariffs start at a higher level.

This agreement would threaten the existence of significant sectors of the agriculture and food processing industries.

This agreement would require the federal government to take “all necessary measures” to implement its provisions, including infringement on the provincial capacity to respond to the needs of Ontario citizens.

Under this agreement Canada would give up far more than it gained.

For these reasons, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario opposes this agreement as detrimental to Canada’s sovereignty and economic interests, and will not be bound to implement those aspects which fall under provincial jurisdiction. We urge the Parliament of Canada to reject the agreement.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As the Premier (Mr. Peterson) indicated in a statement yesterday, I am introducing a resolution to the Legislature today which states this government’s opposition to the proposed free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.

We find that this agreement falls far short of the objectives set out by Prime Minister Mulroney at the beginning of the free trade negotiations more than two years ago. We have determined after careful study that on balance this deal is not good for Canada. We must therefore send a clear message to the federal government that the government of Ontario remains firm in its conviction that this agreement is not in the interests of Canadians.

With these concerns in mind, I am introducing the following resolution for consideration by the members of this Legislature.

“That in the opinion of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario the proposed trade agreement between Canada and the United States fails to address Canada’s needs and goals, while making significant concessions that could prove costly to Canadians. Specifically:

“The proposed agreement fails to secure access to the US market for Canadian goods and services, and provides no assurance of fairer treatment for Canadian exporters. It provides Canadians with virtually no relief from the US trade laws and regulations that are being used to harass them.

“Under the proposed agreement, Canadian exporters could still be penalized in the United States as a result of Canadian policies and programs to promote industrial development, reduce regional disparities and manage our natural resources.

“This agreement would relinquish our ability to pursue an independent energy policy in order to ensure security of supply or enhance regional development.

“This agreement would significantly reduce our ability to ensure that Canadians benefit from US investment and proposed takeovers of Canadian-owned firms.

“This agreement would undercut safeguards which have ensured the existence of a dynamic Canadian auto industry, and reduce Canada’s ability to attract offshore auto industry investment.

“This agreement would eliminate tariffs simultaneously in both countries, despite the fact that Canadian tariffs start at a higher level.

“This agreement would threaten the existence of significant sectors of the agricultural and food processing industries.

“This agreement would require the federal government to take ‘all necessary measures’ to implement its provisions, including infringement on the provincial capacity to respond to the needs of Ontario citizens.

“Under this agreement Canada would give up far more than it gained.

“For these reasons, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario opposes this agreement as detrimental to Canada’s sovereignty and economic interests, and will not be bound to implement those aspects that fall under provincial jurisdiction. We urge the Parliament of Canada to reject the agreement.”

This is the resolution I have moved. It is a matter of historic importance and I urge members of this House to engage in a debate on not only the immediate political concerns of the day but also the consequences of this deal on Canada’s future.

The implementation of the free trade agreement will significantly infringe upon provincial sovereignty and especially the province’s ability to respond to changing social and economic needs.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate?

Mr. B. Rae: I do rise to participate. I do not want to get hung up on procedural matters, but I do want to say that I think it is regrettable it was not possible for there to be enough communication among the three parties that we would not have had the considerable expenditure of time we have seen on people waiting for votes, the ringing of bells and so on over procedural differences of opinion.

It seems to me it should have been possible for the House to have referred this matter to a committee on the basis of a consensual resolution and have the matter dealt with in committee, or whatever procedure one wants to follow. I can tell the government House leader that we had no particular warning it was their intention to move a substantive motion on this day. Obviously, because of the position we have taken with respect to the question of free trade, we have less difficulty making up our minds in terms of our feeling on the issue than do members of the third party, but without agreeing with the position that has been taken by the third party at all, I can say that on a purely procedural basis, I do have some sympathy for the sense of frustration which they obviously feel at the present time.

1640

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: To make it clear, while I appreciate the views of the Leader of the Opposition, l indicated at a House leaders’ meeting last Thursday my intention this week to proceed, to set aside a day’s time to discuss the trade question with a motion or a resolution. I regretted at the time that we did not have, as we expected to have at that time, the final text, and I well recall a discussion about doing it perhaps on Monday. It was pointed out to me quite correctly by the House leader for the official opposition that because the Leader of the Opposition was to be Washington on Monday, that day ought not to be considered, and in respect of the travel plans of the Leader of the Opposition, Monday was set aside to accommodate his being available for this debate. For the record I make that comment.

Mr. B. Rae: If we are going to get into this, as I say -- I suppose, since I raised it, we are going to get into it -- our understanding, as a result of the government House leader’s conversation, and certainly my understanding as a result of talking with our House leader, was not that there was going to be a substantive motion on this day but that we were going to be discussing a referral to the committee.

Those were the terms upon which I had my discussions with him last week as to whether or not we would have a motion and on which day it would take place. I appreciate the fact that he decided to schedule it on Tuesday rather than Monday, at my request. I made that request because it was my understanding that we were going to have a very short debate with respect to a referral and that the three leaders would be participating in a debate.

I scheduled myself on Tuesday on the understanding that the Premier would be here for the discussion. I now find on this occasion, as on the occasion of Meech Lake and as on the occasion of the reply to the speech from the throne, the Premier is not here. I can understand, having been mauled in one television debate, why the Premier would want to avoid having any contact with the other leaders in a debate or combat of any kind. He may well not want to participate. It may well be that Cabor Apor has told him to avoid all possible meetings of minds. That may well be the case.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Oh, that’s right. Mr. Speaker, we forgot, he won the election. That’s why he’s not here. We forgot that. Thanks for reminding us that you won. It was a victory for the NDP.

Mr. B. Rae: The Chairman of Management Board is speaking from his seat because that is the only place he is allowed to speak from these days. All I am saying is, the Chairman of Management Board can deny -- he is here all the time because he has nothing better to do. The Premier is not here, and I just want to make the observation that the Premier, once again on a debate which has now become a debate of substance, has chosen not to be here.

I believe it is one thing for the Premier to say how important this debate is and this question is, and how vital it is, then it is another thing for him to be away whenever there are major issues being discussed with respect to this question.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Let’s listen to the winner of the election speak on this topic.

Mr. B. Rae: I am happy to hear the comments coming from the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston), who has spoken on this occasion from his seat. He is certainly entitled to speak from his seat, if that is where he chooses to speak from, but I do want to say, with respect to this particular motion, that it is not, in our judgement, sufficiently strong and sufficiently clear with respect to precisely what actions and positions the government of Ontario is going to take.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Before the leader of the official opposition gets into his speech, which I am looking forward to with great anticipation, could I confirm the understanding that everybody at the House leaders’ meeting had, with the possible exception of the House leader himself. I also referred to the minutes of the House leaders’ meeting, which have been circulated, and to the best of my knowledge nobody has said no, that is incorrect.

The minutes of last Thursday’s meeting talk about next week. They say, “Motion to refer free trade agreement to the finance committee.” That is what we discussed as House leaders, that is what is on the minutes, saying we were going to deal with this week. Certainly I think it is clear, and the House should be clear, that when the Leader of the Opposition says there was no notice, he is quite correct. In fact, we are doing something very substantially different today than our understanding was of what would be taking place.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just repeat a final time, that is not my memory and that is not my view.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: The minutes are -- no, I am finished.

The Deputy Speaker: Does anybody else want to participate in the debate?

Mr. B. Rae: As far as I was concerned, I had not finished yet. I was just getting warmed up.

I want to say that this motion is not sufficiently strong, and in saying that, I want to go over some ground with the members, particularly those members who have not been here for the last number of years, so that people will understand that there is a real background to this debate, a background to the position that has been taken by the Liberal Party and the Liberal government.

I want to emphasize that I still believe, as I have believed from the beginning and as was confirmed in my discussions with Congressman LaFalce yesterday, that the Liberal government has a double agenda. The double agenda is one of rhetorical opposition to the actions that have been taken by the federal government, a rhetorical opposition to the free trade agreement and, at the same time, a nudge and a wink to the business community and, indeed, to the American Congress, saying: “Don’t worry. We are not really that opposed to the agreement and we are not going to do anything to defeat the agreement. What we are going to do is indicate a rhetorical opposition because we think that is something that is politically shrewd and smart to do, at the same time as a systematic refusal to engage directly the federal government, to engage directly the American Congress, to engage directly and use the power that the government of Ontario has in order to block this agreement.”

I want to start by saying that as a result of many things, but in particular confirmed by a very quick visit to Washington yesterday, there is no question that the momentum for an agreement is very strong. That momentum is strong in the American Congress, and it is powerfully expressed. It is obviously strong within the Progressive Conservative Party at the national level, and as we have warned the government for a long time, it is a momentum that was put in place in November 1985. Once that momentum starts, it is terribly difficult to stop it.

Our argument from the very beginning, going back to November 1985, was simply that Ontario should be using all its power to stop the discussions, to stop the negotiations, for one simple reason. We knew that if the negotiations were allowed to develop a continuing momentum, there would only be and could only be one result. That result would be an agreement which would end up being signed by both governments, by the President of the United States and by the Prime Minister of Canada, and which would ultimately in and of itself develop a momentum that would be virtually terribly difficult to stop.

I suggest that what we have seen now is the result of the action or the inaction of the Liberal government. l personally feel the Premier bears a considerable personal responsibility for the situation that we are in today. I am sorry he is not here. He apparently does not think it is sufficiently interesting for him to be here to listen to the debates and comments that are made by other party leaders.

I do want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Premier directly that I can show him when, time after time, he has used exactly the same language he used today to describe our position, saying that it is ideological, saying that it is theological, saying that we are not being practical and that he is the only one who is being practical. I can show you, time and time again in debate after debate, in question after question from November 1985 to 1986 to 1987, when the Premier took the same position: “Don’t worry, you’re in good hands. I have been assured that the auto pact is not on the table.” Those were his words. “Don’t worry, I have a veto. It is inconceivable that the federal government would move ahead without having the consent of Ontario.”

1650

In quotation after quotation, time after time, from November 1985 right through until now, 1987, as we head into 1988, the same position has been taken by the Premier. I think the record will show that the Premier has been dead wrong. He has just been wrong.

He has systematically underestimated the strength of the federal momentum. He has systematically underestimated the strength of the momentum in the American Congress. He has systematically underestimated the extent to which Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Reagan are responding to a common vision and a common sense of what they call a new economic constitution for North America. He has systematically underestimated the ability and capacity of the government of Ontario to stop the deal, because he did not want to force a confrontation.

He says all the way through: “I don’t want to do anything until I have seen the deal, because it might be a good deal. The Americans might give us everything we want and we might not have to give up anything in return.” He says that is being practical. I am being ideological, according to the Premier, because I have said from the beginning there is no way he is going to get an agreement that is acceptable to the American Congress in which we do not end up giving too much.

It is not a question of being ideological; it is a question of being strategic, frankly. It is question of looking at the balance of power, looking effectively at what our balance of payments has been over the last five years, looking at what our comparative advantages and disadvantages are in our trade with the United States, recognizing what the mood of the American Congress has been and is and then seeing that the only way the American Congress would agree to a deal that would put it on the fast track would be if we gave the Americans a deal in which we gave them virtually everything they wanted.

If I were up in Ottawa attacking the federal government, there would be a clear target. I must confess that in Ontario the target has not been so clear. Obviously, if one looks at the election results and the success the Liberal Party has had in convincing the people of Ontario that it is in fact going to do what is necessary in order to stop this deal, there is no point in expressing one’s sense of irony at what has taken place. As the Liberals say, they are over there and we are over here. We all understand the mathematics and the arithmetic of this business. We know what happened. We know what the particular chemistry and swing of public opinion has been and, frankly, one can only respect that.

But there is another thing. It is called a certain amount of -- I do not know -- some kind of intellectual integrity or something. Look at the record and the number of times the Premier has said, “The government of Ontario has a veto,” and look at the number of times the Premier has said, “Don’t worry, we’re going to take care of Ontario’s interests” --November 1985. “You can sleep tonight. I’m taking care of Ontario’s interests. Don’t worry, Ontario will not get steamrollered” -- those were his words. “Don’t worry, Ontario will never be steamrollered. We’re going to make sure that Ontario’s voice is heard.”

Those remarks and those words have been heard time and time again in this House. Whether we were asking about cultural industries, soft-wood lumber, the auto pact, whatever we were asking about the response always came back, “Don’t be ideological.”

He would say: “The leader of third party” -- which I then was -- ”all you want to do is take your baseball bat and go home. All you want me to do is to stand up and walk out. But imagine how much more influence I’m going to have because I’m going to stay at the bargaining table. Your approach is too ideological, too theological. No, look at me. I’m being practical. I’m going to be right there at the bargaining table the whole time and I’m going to make sure that Ontario’s interests are protected.

“I have been assured by Prime Minister Mulroney that the auto pact isn’t on the table. Don’t worry, it’s all under control. We have Mr. Latimer there. He’s our trade official. We have people there. We’re developing the expertise. Don’t worry, we’re doing the studies which show precisely what kind of a deal will be in Ontario’s best interest. But don’t ask me to take a strong position saying there should be no agreement, because,” -- to go back over that argument one more time, “if we get a good deal, one that gives Ontario and Canada everything they want and one in which we don’t have to give up anything, then of course I’d be in favour of it.”

I have to use parliamentary words, but one has to be faithful to certain principles of intellectual integrity. I am not talking about ideology, I am just talking about trying to think the thing through. I want to say I do not think the Premier has been practical; I think the Premier has been weak. I do not think the government of Ontario has been smart in defending Ontario’s interests; I think the government of Ontario has failed completely to protect Ontario’s interests.

All the way through the piece, the Premier of this province said that what has happened could not happen. All the way through the piece for the last two and a half years, the Premier of this province has been saying that the kind of agreement which emerged could not emerge. All the way through the piece, the Premier of the province has been saying: “Don’t worry, you’re in good hands. The people of the province are in hands which will act only in the best interests of the people of Ontario.”

Finally we come to the election campaign, in which the Premier said if the agreement did not satisfy certain very specific conditions, then, as he said on that occasion, “There will be no deal,” to quote the words that he used. He did not say it once; he did not say it twice; he said it 50 or 100 or 150 times during that election campaign. I cannot add up the number of radio stations or the number of television stations that broadcast that ad: “There can be no deal.”

Then what happened? The Liberals get their huge majority, the deal comes out, and what is the first headline in the Toronto Star? “Ontario Can Do Very Little to Stop Deal, Peterson Says.” He says: “I am not at all persuaded that this deal is in the interests.... We are giving up too much.” Then he goes on to say that there really is not very much he can do.

He says time and again: “The vast majority of the deal is in the federal jurisdiction. There is only a very small area which falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is essentially a federal deal. It is within the federal power to enact the deal.”

That has been the position he has enunciated. That was the position of the government of Ontario. Now today what do we have? We have the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) speaking at an audience of lawyers, just a few yards from this place, saying that he disagrees fundamentally and completely with those people who say that 97 per cent of the deal is within federal jurisdiction.

He states categorically, in what I would describe as a very good description of what the problems are, from a constitutional point of view, with the approach the federal government has taken -- and I will come to it in a moment -- he takes the view that it is such an infringement of the right, not of one level of government or another but of governments in general to act on behalf of their citizens that it is fundamentally constitutionally flawed. It is as flawed fundamentally as any unilateral patriation of the Constitution was when it took place in 1980-81.

To the Attorney General it is that fundamental, and he states categorically in his speech that it is not a matter of one or two technical problems falling within or without provincial jurisdiction, it is a matter of the foundation of the agreement itself. Because what is the foundation of this agreement? It should come as no surprise to us. I was not surprised by the agreement; I do not think anybody should be surprised by the agreement.

1700

The agreement was the culmination of the process in which two governments, happening to share a very particular philosophy and way of looking at the economy, and business interests which have a direct interest in eliminating and emasculating the role of government, business interests which historically have always seen a very limited and restricted role for the public sector for governments, and for other community groups as well in terms of helping to intervene in the economy, got together and built the momentum for a plan.

The plan is what Ronald Reagan has described as the economic constitution of North America. Congressman LaFalce, in his remarks to the Congress yesterday, to the congressional symposium on the Canadian-American free trade agreement, describes it this way:

“In this the bicentennial year of our Constitution, Americans look back and wonder at the feat of imagination that designed our democratic institutions, so responsive and so flexible, yet enduring. Yet perhaps as great an intellectual break with the past as the Constitution, as great a leap of progress, was the rejection of the mercantilist philosophies that had been tearing our young nation apart in the establishment of free trade among our newly united states. Today, we may be closer to making another great leap of progress by creating free trade again, this time between our country and Canada.”

I think the message is very clear from the United States. I think what they are talking about here is the expansion of a free trade zone from the 50 states to include Canada. What they are saying and what the exponents of free trade are basically saying is that the private sector and the expansion of the private sector is good and healthy and that markets should be expanded as broadly as possible because that is good and healthy. It is almost the expression of the classic sort of Adam Smith philosophy that governments should not get in the way; that governments should not interpose themselves between this magic of the marketplace; that if governments get involved, things become inefficient and we have the various inefficiencies that grow up, according to the theory, and that everyone is just better off if governments are reduced and emasculated in their role and if businesses are allowed and able to do what they want.

Yesterday we had Mr. d’Aquino from the Business Council on National Issues saying what a wonderful thing it was and how substantial business opinion in Canada was in favour of the free trade agreement. Why should any of us be surprised by that? If the largest and most successful businesses in Canada now say, “We want to create a constitutional framework which will, for all time, reduce, emasculate and limit the role of government,” why would they not take that opportunity with both hands and seize it and run with it?

It is not a question of being anti-American. It is a question of being opposed to a Constitution which will for ever limit and emasculate the role of government and not just the role of one government but the role of governments in general.

If I were an American citizen, I would be profoundly concerned about the way in which an agreement of this kind prevents American states from doing some things which may be necessary and which they may want to do on behalf of their state. It may well be that some American state would object to the establishment of more Extendicare private nursing homes in that state. I am not going to object to that. I am not going to object to a state in the United States taking that kind of a position on behalf of its citizens if that is what it decides to do.

What is at stake here, as I say, is not so much Canada’s relationship simply with the United States. It is Canadians’ relationship to their governments and to their public institutions. It is about people limiting their own right, their own capacity -- that is what sovereignty is -- their own sovereignty, their ability, their power, individually and collectively, to control their future.

I believe profoundly in a mixed economy. I believe profoundly that the market must always respond to the broader public interest. I believe profoundly that we must not see the law of contract and the creation of markets as the be-all and end-all. We have to create a society in which markets are made to work for people, and if they cannot be made to work for people, then we have to find other popular democratic institutions and ways of doing things.

I do not believe that when businesses get together and are able to exercise their power over people we should prevent those people from turning to trade unions, to co-operatives, to political parties or to governments as their way of balancing that extraordinary private power.

So when people say, “Your opposition to free trade is ideological” -- which is the remark, the only enduring theme I think I can attribute to the Premier of this province in the last two and a half years -- I want to say this to the Premier: I am not ashamed of having a philosophy. I am proud of it, and I am very proud of the fact that that philosophy is one that says to me, let us not shackle people, let us not prevent people, let us not hold people down and prevent them from responding to abuses of economic and private power.

Yet that is what this free trade agreement does. That is what it is intended to do. That is the philosophy upon which it is based. At least I must say that we on our side of the House have the courage to make our philosophy known. The Premier says he does not have a philosophy; he is practical. I do not think he has been practical. I think the response of the provincial government to this issue has been pathetic.

Here we have a Premier who has told the province, and certainly told me on a number of occasions, “Being the Premier of the province is the second most powerful position in Canada,” and having said that, he is not prepared to use that power; he is not prepared to block the deal.

It is very clear he is not prepared to block the deal. First of all, he had to wait for the Prime Minister to tell Congress to tell the President. Then he had to wait for the President to tell the Congress. Then he had to wait for the Congress to decide whether or not there would be a fast track. Then he had to wait for the discussions, for the negotiations to continue. Then he had to wait for the negotiations to proceed a little bit further.

Then he had to wait for the next first ministers’ conference, at which all these things would become clear. Then he had to wait for the assurances from Mr. Mulroney that there would be no deal. Then he had to wait for the actual announcement of the deal. Then he had to wait for the publication of the actual document, the official text. Then he had to wait for the elaboration, the next stage of the official text.

Now he is telling us, today he has just announced that it is not a question of waiting for the Prime Minister to tell the President, or for the President to tell Congress, or for Congress to get going on the fast track, or for the negotiations to proceed, or for the umpteenth first ministers’ conference, or for the agreement to be announced, or for the agreement to be texted, or for the final agreement finally to be published. Now he says, “I have got to wait for the federal government to produce its legislation and to put that legislation into effect.”

Mr. D. R. Cooke: How would you have stopped this agreement?

Mr. B. Rae: The member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), who has been an advocate of the tactic which the Premier has followed and who was chairman of the committee in which Liberals and Conservatives agreed that these negotiations should continue and that there should be no interference with these negotiations, says, “What would you have done?”

I can tell the member precisely what I would have done. As Premier of this province, I would have said to the Prime Minister of Canada from the very beginning, “You have no mandate to proceed; you have no authority to proceed,” and I would have used every ounce of my power of persuasion, of the sovereignty of this province to do everything in my power to stop those negotiations, to force a change in the tactics and strategy of the federal government and to make sure that an agreement of this kind was not even contemplated, let alone signed.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: But he has the authority.

1710

Mr. B. Rae: The member for Kitchener says the Prime Minister has the authority to do this. The Premier of this province also has a lot of authority. There are countless areas where the province and the federal government work together on a daily basis. Do members think it would have been impossible two years ago for the Premier to have said, “All those discussions are off; all those negotiations are off”?

The Liberal Party cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, as the Attorney General said, that this agreement is an attack on the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the people. That is what he was saying. What the Attorney General was saying at the bar association was: “This is not about governments. This is not simply about economics. This is about the rights of people to make rules to protect themselves.” He was right when he said that, but they cannot say that and then have absolutely no response over two and a half years. Nothing; nothing to show what Ontario’s real position is.

There is a reason for that. It is because the Liberal Party has a double agenda. That double agenda is very clear. The double agenda is that there is a large section, the business community, which supports this agreement and the Premier of this province does not want to get too far out of line with that opinion and that way of looking at the world. He wants to be all things to all people.

It is not a phenomenon unknown in this business. It is not a phenomenon unique to the Premier or unique to the Liberal Party; it is a very human failing with respect to politics. It is a frequent accusation that is made about the political process.

Frankly, I do not care if the polls show that the approval rating for the Premier is at 99.9 per cent. I still have to say that on this issue the Premier of this province has failed the fundamental test of leadership. He has failed to do those things he said he would do. He has failed to protect the interests of this province. Even now, today, when he says the agreement is unacceptable, he has not got one positive step to take by which Ontario will exercise whatever power it can to block the deal. Even at this date, he is not prepared to do that. This is the phoniest position I can possibly imagine and it is important for us to expose it.

It is with almost philosophical resignation, in a sense, that one says these things because the realities of politics are that there are 95 over there and a somewhat smaller number on this side.

Mr. Villeneuve: Ninety-four.

Mr. B. Rae: Ninety-four; no, it is 95 until December 31.

It is important for us to come back to this point and to say it again. We are where we are at because the Liberal Party decided it was not really going to oppose this. They decided they were going to play push-me, pull-me for two and a half years; they decided they were rhetorically concerned but were not prepared to do anything about it.

We are moving an amendment to the motion for a very simple reason. The first reason is that I want to point out a certain ambivalence in the motion itself. Without getting into the preamble, I just want to get to the final paragraph:

“For these reasons, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario opposes this agreement as detrimental to Canada’s sovereignty and economic interests” -- with which we are in agreement -- ”and will not be bound to implement those aspects which fall under provincial jurisdiction. We urge the Parliament of Canada to reject the agreement.”

First of all, I want to point out how weaselly the words “will not be bound” are. One of my first tasks as a lawyer was to help draft a little article called, Weasel Words and Sucker Clauses. It was advice to trade union negotiators on what to watch for when management comes down with some contract clauses. One of the first things I wrote was a little leaflet. I will send it to the leader of the third party because he would enjoy it.

Weasel Words and Sucker Clauses: I cannot imagine a more classic example of weasel words and a sucker clause than this one. What does it say? It says we “will not be bound to implement those aspects.” It does not say “will not implement.” It does not say that. It says “will not be bound to implement those aspects which fall under provincial jurisdiction.”

What is interesting about this is that it is there for a reason. Those words are not there by accident. Those words are there for a reason. Those words are there because the government of Ontario, even at this date, does not have the courage to say, “We will not implement it.” What it is saying is, “We will not be bound to implement it.”

I have three small kids. Sometimes we have arguments about what time to go to bed. What is interesting is that sometimes one of them will say: “I am going to bed at nine o’clock, but not because you are telling me to go to bed at nine o’clock. I am going to bed at nine o’clock because I want to go to bed at nine, not because you are telling me.”

What the Premier of the province is telling us, what this resolution says is, “The government of Ontario can say, ‘Oh, we’re going to implement parts of the agreement, not because we are bound to but because we want to.’” Is that not what they are really saying? Is that not why they chose these words? Is it not because the Liberal Party wants to maintain the freedom to be able to say: “We are implementing this part of the agreement on services or on energy or on anything else, but it has nothing to do with the free trade agreement. No, no; we are doing this just because we want to do it.”

I was talking yesterday to people about the services question. One of the speakers said to me: “What kind of credibility does Ontario have on services? Which government was it that fell all over itself in order to invite the Americans to take over Bay Street? Which was the government that was the very first in Canada to do whatever it could to say: ‘Fine, open up. Get the securities in there, get it in there,’ falling all over themselves as fast as they can?”

Mr. J. B. Nixon: You have your facts wrong again. You’re wrong again.

Mr. B. Rae: The member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon) is heckling, and l can understand why he is heckling. He was one of the people who helped to draft that legislation. He helped to draft those regulations.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: No, because you’re wrong again.

Mr. B. Rae: If the member for York Mills is denying for a moment that the province of Ontario unilaterally, without getting anything in return from the Americans, opened up its market to the Americans in the financial services field, then he was not here when it happened.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I was here, but you weren’t.

Mr. B. Rae: I certainly was.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Then you did not read it.

Mr. B. Rae: I certainly did.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: You read it wrong, then.

Mr. B. Rae: All I can say is that I have had several arguments with the Premier on this question, and he says: “We did not do that because of free trade or for any other reason. We did that because we wanted to; we did that because we thought that was in our best interest.

We did not do that because we wanted the Americans to take over Bay Street, even though that is one of the implications of what has gone on; we did that simply because we wanted to open up our securities field to competition from outside Canada.”

I am telling members that what we are going to get from this government is precisely the same action with respect to services. We are going to get from this government precisely the same moves. We are going to get a determination by this government not to fight the deal but to express its opposition, not to try to stop the deal but simply to try to express its concern rhetorically.

That is why I am moving some amendments. In moving these amendments, I want to make it clear that what we are doing in our amendment to the resolution is trying, first of all, to express what we think is the will of the House, and second of all, to express what the Premier has said on other occasions.

The government of Ontario has said on a number of occasions that it is fighting mad over the free trade deal. On May 27, 1986, the Premier was speaking to the Ontario Chamber Commerce at the Ramada Hotel in Scarborough. He said that his government would “fight very, very hard if an attempt is made to put the auto pact on the bargaining table.”

Mr. Pope: Some fight.

Mr. B. Rae: That is what he said.

Then he said on another occasion, “There is no question that Ontario has a veto to reject the free trade agreement.” He has stated this on a number of occasions.

He said, in a comment that I heard him make and saw reported in the press, that Ontario ought to use all the power it had if the agreement was not acceptable to Ontario. Yet, when push comes to shove and when the agreement actually comes out, he does not do it. He is “wimping out,” to use the phrase Claire Hoy used in his column on October 13, 1987. That is precisely what has happened and it is because of that fact that we are moving an amendment.

I want to emphasize that this is a reasoned amendment. It does not extend or commit the Liberal Party to doing anything other than what it said it was going to do and what the Premier himself personally said it would do on a number of occasions. Therefore, I am moving, seconded by my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), that the resolution be amended.

1720

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. B. Rae moves, seconded by Mr. D. S. Cooke, that the resolution be amended in the last paragraph by removing all wording after the word “Canada’s” and substituting the following:

“sovereignty and economic and cultural independence and, therefore, this Legislature agrees that the termination of this agreement is dependent on the government of Ontario fulfilling its pledge to block it in concert with other opposing provinces.

“Therefore, this Legislature calls on the government of Ontario to take the following immediate steps: a constitutional challenge to the agreement in the Supreme Court because of this agreement’s infringement on provincial jurisdiction; a message to the administration and Congress of the United States expressing our opposition to the free trade agreement; an unequivocal commitment not to legislate, regulate or co-operate in any way to implement the agreement in any area of provincial jurisdiction, whether directly or indirectly; a commitment to take such other political and economic measures within Ontario’s powers, which would have the effect of blocking this agreement and a message to the Parliament of Canada urging rejection of this agreement.”

Mr. B. Rae: I think this amendment is clear and very specific. If there are Liberals who object to it, I can show them each paragraph where the Premier of this province has said this is precisely what he would do. I can show them precise quotations where he said: “This is what Ontario will do. This is what I will. This is what I think needs to be done.” All I am saying to the government is, if it is really opposed to this agreement, and if it does not have a double agenda, this is its chance to prove it.

Mr. Brandt: I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in this debate and to put forward the position of our party relative to the question that I personally feel, and the members of my party feel, is perhaps the most critical and important issue that may be discussed in this particular assembly for some long time.

I want members to know that upon taking on the responsibilities of my new position, one of the things I indicated was that I wanted to give our party an opportunity to review its policies relative to some of the positions we had put forward during the course of our discussion with the people of this province on September 10. As a result of the overwhelming success that we realized at that particular time, we took a complete and total review of our policies, the first of which was our policy with respect to a free trade agreement. We did that because it was important that we give the caucus of that particular time an opportunity to express its views in a very open and in a very democratic fashion within our caucus and to determine whether the feeling our party had had prior to the important date of September 10 was in fact going to remain consistent.

I am pleased to tell the members of this assembly that if there is any policy within our party which has absolute, total, complete and unquestioned unanimity, it is this policy in which we favour a free trade agreement with the United States. I want to tell members that because I think it is important that they understand exactly how strongly we feel about this issue.

Over the course of the next few days, we are going to put forward all of the salient arguments that we feel are important for the members of this House to hear, because we know that, upon making up their minds as to whether Canada should enter into this agreement and because of the pivotal role that the province of Ontario plays within the context of a Canada-US agreement, it is important that the members of this assembly understand each and every issue. We intend to review those and to exhaust that agenda, as it were, in order that all of those issues are canvassed very completely.

Within the context of our policy position as it relates to free trade, I want to make it abundantly clear that we oppose the resolution of the government, that we will oppose the amendment, and we will in fact be proposing our own amendment to the amendment at some later stage in this discussion.

I want to say, and I think this is important, that time and again we hear on the other side of the House, through the first minister, about his concerns as they relate to a free trade agreement. We hear how important this is to Ontario. We hear how important this is in the context of the economic viability of this province, how there are certain things that he has concerns about as they relate to free trade, and I ask a very simple question: when my friend the Leader of the Opposition made his brief address to the House a few moments ago, I noticed with some degree of concern the fact that the Premier of this province was not in attendance, and I note now, as I make my few brief remarks, that again the Premier of this province is not in attendance for what is probably going to be one of the most important debates, if not the most important debate, we will undertake in this House.

I simply do not think that is right, that on one day and in one forum or on one occasion one can talk about how important it is to deal with these subjects, to really get into the meat of the mechanics of what this agreement is all about, and then simply excuse oneself from the forum in which this debate has to be carried on. I want to say that, in my view, that is inappropriate behaviour and I think it is inappropriate for the Premier of this province to absent himself on this particular occasion, simply because I do believe that this is in fact an important debate.

I also want to say very briefly that as it relates to the procedural position taken by the government relative to the motion it has put before the House and also the ultimate referral to committee, we have some concerns about the way the government handled that particular matter. I want to associate myself entirely with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and the position he put forward that --

Hon. Mr. Elston: Same old gang.

Mr. Brandt: It may be the same old gang, I want to tell the member, only as it relates to our understanding of what went on and the agreement that was left with our House leader and with the House leader of the official opposition, which seems to be badly misunderstood by the government House leader.

The fact of the matter is that we do have some concerns about debating a motion by the government, making a decision as it relates to a particular topic and then referring it, once a judgement has been made, to a committee which is now going to effectively spin its wheels for some period of time. Yet they expect our party, and presumably the official opposition, to be enthusiastic about the work of a committee when the decision is already final in their minds.

That is simply not the way in which you conduct the business of this House. That is simply not the way in which you get the co-operation, if you will, of the members of the opposition.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we are quite prepared. We have not put a resolution before the House as the government did. They forced us into an action which was totally outside of that which we had intended simply because they precipitated the action.

1730

I will get back to the main body of my address. One of the problems in this debate is that a number of speakers stand up and talk about the need for removing the emotionalism in the debate and getting down to the hard facts and being somewhat objective about what this deal really means. What is the impact of this deal on agriculture? What is its impact on various industries in this province: the petrochemical industry, the forest industry, the mining industry, the automotive industry? What is the real impact going to be? We hear about the importance of taking this emotionalism out of the debate when one attempts to wrap oneself in the flag and says, “I am against free trade and I am against the Americans; therefore, I have to be a good Canadian.”

I want to attempt at least, during the few short minutes that I have to make some remarks this evening, to be as objective and as unemotional about this topic as possible. I decided to bring some reference material. One of the things that I brought with me to share with the members of the House today are some references that I think are really quite objective and have removed the emotionalism that I talked about earlier.

They are from a group called the C. D. Howe Institute. Have members heard of the C. D. Howe Institute? Let me tell the House how objective this group is, just for the edification of members. The C. D. Howe Institute is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational institution. So far so good. It carries out and makes public independent analyses and critiques of economic policy issues and translates scholarly research into choices for action by governments and the private sector.

Once having understood exactly what the C. D. Howe Institute does in its daily activities, I decided to find out what its position was, if it had one, on free trade. I thought that would be only fair because it is nonpartisan, independent, nonprofit, and it deals with items of research as they relate to major questions of the day. Here is what the institute has to say about a trade agreement. I know the members want to hear this because it is objective. These are not my quotes. They come from an independent source:

“We, therefore, in choosing among the options available to us, conclude that Canada’s long-term economic interests are best served by pursuing bilateral liberalization of trade with the United States.” The only word I do not like there is “liberalization.” There must be a way of changing that, and I will speak to the C. D. Howe Institute about it.

They also went on to say, “Status quo policies would subject our country to serious and unacceptable economic risks,” and I concur. They also said, “To our surprise, we were forced to the conclusion that our cultural and political sovereignty would be increased rather than diminished by achieving treaty-protected access to the US market.”

That flies in the face of all the rhetorical nonsense that we hear from those who are in opposition to this trading agreement. The concern I have in regard to the government’s position, if one can ever find a position that the government stands for in relation to this topic, is that it really does not have a position.

Although I do not agree with the position being taken by the members of the official opposition, as a fellow parliamentarian I have to tell members that I respect the fact that they have a philosophical position. They have stuck to it. They have enunciated it and articulated it very clearly and we know where they stand. The government’s position, if I may borrow a term used to identify a certain political group at one time, is a waffle kind of position, whereby it moves according to the political breezes of the day.

An hon. member: That is being kind.

Mr. Brandt: Some of my colleagues say that is being kind. I always attempt to be kind with my remarks, as you well know, Mr. Speaker.

In attempting to be kind in relation to the description I have used of the waffling that I believe is going on on the other side, I associate myself too with the remarks the second party made in relation to not understanding where the government is coming from.

One day during the period leading up to the election, we see in the newspapers that if these things do not happen there will be no deal. The government of Ontario is going to step in and stop everything cold in its tracks. I am going to quote a friend of mine who said, “Superman went into a telephone booth and came out a wimp,” or something like that. I cannot recall who made that comment.

An hon. member: Clark Kent.

Mr. Brandt: He came out looking like Clark Kent. Just to get the quote correct, it was that the Premier had gone into a telephone booth as Superman and had come out as Clark Kent. Now we have it accurately. I do not want to be inaccurate in my quotes.

Mr. B. Rae: Who said that? That is a clever remark.

Mr. Brandt: I still cannot recall who in fact made that quote.

The difficulty we have here is that we do not understand why the Premier was so definitive and so specific and why he led the people of Ontario to believe that members of his party were going to be the knights on shining white horses and that he would pour forth with his opposition to this trade agreement and stop it because he thought it was not in the best interests of Canada or Ontario.

The fact of the matter is that this government has completely capitulated on the position it took before the people of Ontario. It has just completely capitulated, and it has a position which becomes increasingly difficult to understand. I fully appreciate the kind of frustration that is felt by some people, who see a complete turnabout here, where the government is simply in the middle of the road. It is not for and it is not against. It is kind of standing by the side of the road watching the parade go by.

I want to say to my friends opposite, this is not the only issue on which they are standing at the side of the road watching the parade go by. The litany of broken promises does not begin and end with the free trade deal. We could include in that the housing problems and the education problems. I will not get into those today, because I would by straying from the topic, but I do want to say that those are important matters of discussion which we will get into on another day.

As members of the Conservative Party, why are we in favour of a free trade deal? Let me quote from one of this government’s documents, one of the few that it released that maybe gave a somewhat accurate reflection of what would happen under this trade deal. Members have heard what the C. D. Howe Institute had to say. It made it very clear: there is no status quo; there is no loss of sovereignty or cultural programs; in fact, Canada will benefit from a trade deal with the United States. That is the position it put forward after a great deal of study on this question.

What did the report of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) say? To everyone’s surprise, it said that wages would go up and prices would go down. What a bad deal.

I thought the role of government was to improve on the quality of life and the standard of living of the people it is supposed to represent. What happens is, it gets a report from its own Treasurer saying, admittedly, that there would be minimal, minimal kinds of improvements, but that wages would go up and prices would go down.

1740

That is the reason, ladies and gentlemen opposite, that the Consumers’ Association of Canada has indicated it is in favour of the deal. Are they a vested-interest body? Absolutely not. They are a group and an organization that represents consumers right across Canada. Do members know what conclusion they came to? That this will benefit consumers because, as a result of competition, it will drive prices down and as a result of driving prices down there will be more spendable income for each Canadian. I do not see what is so wrong with that. There is point 1, one of the reasons we are in favour of this deal: because wages will go up and prices will go down, and that is fairly easy to understand.

Let me share with members, with honourable members opposite in particular and with my friends in the official opposition, why we are concerned about this motion and why we feel so strongly about the fact that they are moving in the wrong direction. We are going to put forward over the course of the next while a few arguments for why they should change their minds.

I hope those members who have just come into the House for the first time, some of the 94 who sit opposite and who are perhaps here in this assembly waiting to be converted to that which is right and proper, will stand and vote with our small group here, which is attempting to put forward a position which we feel is right for Ontario and right for Canada. We ask them not to walk along like blind sheep on a position being taken by their government which is wrong, wrong, wrong. That is what we ask them to do.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: Thank you. Do not take too much of my time. I want to keep going.

Why are we concerned? Let me tell members. I want to say this in as direct a way as I possibly can, and please listen carefully, members of the government party, because I think this is important. One of the things that they have completely set aside as being of no concern and that they really have not spent too much time and attention on is the question of United States protectionism. We can sit back, as Canadians and as Ontarians, and we can say, “We happen to have a rather respectable surplus in our trade dealings with the United States.” And that is right; we do. It is around $20 billion. We can say that because we have a bit of an edge in our relationship --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member. I remind all members that they are not allowed to speak from any other member’s seat, and particularly not interject. Sorry to interrupt.

Mr. Brandt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is good to have the voice of authority back. Things were getting a little out of hand there for a while, and to have you back to assist is most welcome, sir.

Do the members opposite have any concern, as we do, about the question of protectionism on the part of the US government? Or do they think this is some kind of fiction that we have developed on this side of the House to scare them into signing some kind of trade deal with the US? That is absolute nonsense. The reality is simply that, as members well know from reading the newspapers on a daily basis, the Americans are extremely concerned about the trade deficit which they have been experiencing over the last number of years. It has now reached the astounding amount of some $180 billion, and the amount that is directly attributable to the trade with Canada is some $20 billion.

Mr. Callahan: It’s not true.

Mr. Brandt: Some would argue the number. I will concede there are different ways of arriving at that figure, depending on which goods and services you include. But I can tell members that the low number is $15 billion and the high number is $20 billion; it is between $15 billion and $20 billion. That is the figure. Members opposite will have to show me the evidence to prove otherwise.

The point I want to make is that we are part of the deficit position, whatever the amount, that the Americans are experiencing at the moment, and the protectionist trade bills that are coming forward in the United States Congress reflect the concern and apprehension of the American public, through their elected representatives, over the deficit in trade they are experiencing at the moment.

Of the $170 billion in total trade that we have with the United States-two-way trade at the moment -- we have an advantage, and I think it is great that we have an advantage but, as the C. D. Howe Institute indicated in its remarks and in the comments it made in reflecting on a trade deal, the status quo is simply not an option. The reason it is not an option is that the Americans are going to do something about the problems they have at the moment which have resulted in a huge outflow of American money to other countries in the world.

We know we are not the only problem they have. They have problems with Taiwan, with South Korea, with Japan and with some of the European Community countries. They have problems with a few other countries in the world, but they have a very serious problem with Canada which they are going to resolve in some way. We have a trade agreement here that helps to resolve those fundamental questions. It places us on a level playing field that is an equitable kind of relationship for both the United States and Canada, with all the protective devices one would need, and this is recognized by most of the observant individuals who have made comment on this deal. Most of the fail-safe kind of devices you would want in a trade arrangement are there.

Now the Premier can stand up and say: “This deal does not really give us all the safeguards we want. In terms of the dispute settlement mechanism, this deal really does not have a kind of binding resolution for every problem.” Yet we have here the statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) today in which he indicates he still wants to have a methodology of providing regional incentives to areas that have economic problems, and I agree.

All the Americans are saying is that if we are going to subsidize a product, whether it be agriculture, automobiles, another industry of whatever kind, if we are going to bring about some form of regional subsidization then they want an opportunity to review that in the context of a dispute settlement mechanism to make sure that it is fair and equitable and that we are on a level playing field.

The Americans are not saying we cannot do it. They are not saying it is outside of an agreement that they would want to enter into with us, but they are saying, quite properly within the context of an arrangement between two sovereign nations, that they should have an opportunity to review that and refer it to a dispute settlement mechanism, such as we have, that will resolve the issue without going through a lengthy kind of court battle and using the American justice system. It is very lengthy and very costly for Canadian business to get through that system.

As much as they do not like the dispute settlement mechanism, most observers have come to the conclusion that although it is not perfect, and I will concede that, and although it does not cover every single possible referral to the dispute settlement mechanism as it stands now, it is absolutely a quantum leap ahead of what we have at the present time, which is nothing. We have no way of resolving those disputes. We have no way of resolving those particular problems.

Now we have a tribunal that has been fine-tuned a little bit, involving five people who will come to a decision on these kinds of disputes. They have also indicated, and members should be aware of this because they acknowledge they do not have all the answers to this very comprehensive trade deal, that in putting this deal together, they will try to firm up, to become more specific with respect to the dispute settlement mechanism over the course of the next five years. So that will be phased; there will be a phased approach not only to the reduction of tariffs and to the removal of trade barriers but also to the fine-tuning of the dispute settlement mechanism.

1750

I might also indicate, for the edification of members opposite, that when the Premier stood up in his place in this House and indicated that there was no way in which any provincial government could participate actively in improving this deal, he perhaps had not read some of the more salient points in the deal that is being proposed between Canada and the United States which indicated that over a period of time certain other things would happen.

For example, the phase-in period for tariff reduction is one, five and 10 years. That will happen over a period of time and it will happen, I might add, after having been fully, completely and exhaustively discussed with the industries in question. They have had an opportunity to say, “It is in our best interests that this phase-in period not take place too quickly,” so that they can make the necessary adjustments.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Not the Canadians.

Mr. Brandt: The Canadian industries have had that kind of discussion. Do not tell me otherwise, because that does not happen to be the case.

Also as a result, in relation to the dispute settlement mechanism, as I was referring to earlier, there is an opportunity for input to improve on that mechanism and to make it more reflective of the kinds of things that tribunal will be dealing with.

Our bottom line with respect to the question of protectionism and the problems we see that are inherent in the US economy at the present time is that, as a result of recognizing the American problems, Canada must have a method which will allow us full access to the American market, what we have now, and building upon that base for the future. In order to do that, Canada recognizing their problems as a result of their deficit --

Hon. Mr. Elston: What do you mean, “Canada recognizing their problems”? It should be, “Canada recognizing our problems.”

Mr. Brandt: I recognize that, but the minister should understand that when one deals with a trading partner, one also has to concern oneself with what goes on on the other side of the border. Their deficit is a problem that we have to acknowledge because if we get some form of retaliation from the US in relation to our trading arrangement, we can be in very dire straits indeed, recognizing that 90 per cent of Ontario’s exported products go into that market.

It is one thing to sit over there like fat cats and take the position that everything is just going to go on without any reaction from the American politicians. Do members opposite think they are not concerned about the import of products and the export of jobs? That is what is happening in the United States, and by entering into a trade agreement we can secure our position with our largest trading partner and integrate to a great extent the economic activity between two of the greatest trading nations in the entire world. We can do that to the benefit of Ontario and we can do that to the benefit of Canada.

One of the parts of this debate that really bothers me more than any other is the way some people are arguing that this is a bad deal for Canada and using this opportunity to wrap themselves in the flag and indicate that those who are in opposition to the deal are good Canadians and, by reflection, those who are in favour of the deal are bad Canadians or do not have any national pride or do not consider themselves to be quite as intense about their own feelings towards their country and their nation. That is absolute, utter nonsense. I am as much a Canadian as the Premier or anyone else on that side of the House.

I want to say to the members, as the C. D. Howe Institute said, that the interesting part of entering into an economic relationship with the United States in the context of this deal is that it strengthens our sovereignty. It strengthens our culture because our economy is going to get better, and as a result of the economic fortunes of this province improving, we have more wealth to share with the people of this country.

We will be able to afford the social programs, we will be able to preserve the cultural programs and we will be able to preserve the sovereignty and the independence of this country. To wrap themselves in the flag, as some members are wont to do, and indicate they are good Canadians and because of that in some fashion we must, therefore, be anti-American is inappropriate, unnecessary and uncalled for.

I want to tell members what else our party stands for. I want to deal with specifics this afternoon and I have a feeling I am not going to be able to get through my remarks before six o’clock. We favour a bilateral trade deal with the United States.

Mr. South: We all do, Andy. We are with you, Andy.

Mr. Pope: Then leave the Liberal Party of Ontario, because it does not want to do that.

Mr. Brandt: I hope the Leader of the Opposition noted the great enthusiasm that was shown opposite when we talked about a bilateral trade deal with the United States. If so many of them are in favour of it, they should come on over, because we might need them at the time when the vote is taken on this matter. Our party goes a step further, which I think is also an important dimension in the discussion and the debate. We favour a multilateral trade deal with the rest of the world.

Mr. Ferraro: So do we.

Mr. Pope: Then you had better leave the Liberal Party of Ontario.

Mr. Brandt: Gentlemen opposite and members opposite --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I know there have been many occasions when members in this House had differing views. However, one member is presenting his views, and I am sure there will be ample opportunity for other members to present their views. The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: I want to talk very briefly about the importance of multilateral relationships as well as bilateral relationships. We do have a very strong commitment and conviction about the need for a formalized trading relationship with the United States but we also recognize full well that there are other countries in the world to which we should be paying a great deal of attention and we should be attempting to increase the flow of Ontario products to those countries. But when you look at that very carefully, one of the things you find is a lot of those countries will not do business with us because they have already formed their own trading blocs and have stopped us from penetrating their markets.

There are many of those markets where it is impossible, irrespective of the price, quality or the service of an Ontario product. We cannot sell into the European Community, for example. Try to sell certain agricultural products to the EEC; the door is closed. It is absolutely impossible. Under whatever circumstances one might at-tempt to find the third option that the former Prime Minister talked about, the third option is not there for us to consider in many instances.

However, I still agree that multilateral trade options are a very key item and should be part of our collective agenda. If we cannot agree on the bilateral opportunities with the US market, then let us find a way to have this House unanimously agree that we should be doing more. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who is not here at the moment, should be doing more to exercise his responsibilities and spread Ontario products to various other countries in the world where we may have an opportunity to make some realistic sales.

I find myself --

Mr. Speaker: You might find it an appropriate time to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Brandt: I am at such an important part of my speech that I hesitate to stop at this moment, but I do recognize the clock. In recognizing the clock, I ask that we adjourn the debate at this time.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

15 décembre 1987