Journal des débats 1987-déc-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform all members that on Monday last the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) brought to my attention two matters which I undertook to examine and report to the House on.

On the first matter, the member brought to my attention and to the attention of the House the fact that the publishing firm of Carswell is offering a service to the public which it calls the Ontario Legislative Digest Service. The honourable member was kind enough to send me a copy of this brochure.

On examination, I could find no problem with this service. Basically, this company is using public information and collating it in a way that might prove useful to some members of the general public. I could not find that the service infringed upon the right of honourable members or that it made use of the Legislative Assembly’s publications in any untoward way.

On the second matter, the member for Oshawa seemed to perceive a problem with the fact that the honourable the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was the object of an allegation of conflict of interest made by another honourable member and at the same time was carrying a bill dealing with conflict of interest before a standing committee of this House.

Traditionally, it has not been the role of Speakers to determine, first of all, matters of conflict of interest. Second, the alleged conflict of interest has been referred to the interim commissioner and I am certain that it is being properly addressed there. Third, the bill in question has been referred by this House to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and, therefore, any matters of order should be brought to the attention of the committee at this point in the process.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Allen: In recent years, many of our communities have been afflicted by plant closures of one kind or another. There have been problems in issues of unemployment, sometimes related to plant closures and sometimes not. We have seen our responses to those crisis situations take a very ad hoc form as now a federal program, now a provincial program, or some local action is brought into play in response to the critical needs of the unemployed, their families, their needs for retraining, for reorientation and for the support services that are necessary to maintain them through difficult times.

In looking at my own community of Hamilton, one can identify that ad hockery, sometimes ingenious, certainly supported and worked on by institutions ranging from the labour council through to the chamber of commerce. Surely it is time in our communities for us to develop institutions of community economic adjustment or economic development which would involve all of the agencies that are impacted and that can possibly serve a useful role in helping reorient workers’ lives, helping them establish themselves on a new basis, helping to re-equip and redevelop factories that are no longer in use and, overall, giving a new thrust to a community that tackles its own problems, but with the support of both the federal and provincial governments.

I issue this comment as a statement and also an alert in a time of critical need.

STUDENTS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING

Mr. Pollock: I ask all members of this assembly to join with me in welcoming a group of students from Centre Hastings Secondary School in Madoc. These students are members of a Students Against Drunk Driving chapter, commonly known as SADD. They received a cheque for $500 last Friday from Mr. Lefebvre of the Ministry of the Attorney General for being one of the winners of the “Only you can stop drinking and driving” decal contest.

Present today in the gallery are -- and I would ask them to please stand and be recognized -- Diane Stiles, chairperson; Karen Wiggins, vice-chairperson; Sarah Coviello, student council president; Michael Brenan, Linda Carman, Bonnie Baumhour, Heather White, Kim Phillips, Paula Foley, Linda Stiles, Alice Nickerson, and their teacher, Mrs. Sheila Barry. Please give this group a real Queen’s Park welcome.

ERNEST CHARLES DRURY

Mr. Owen: In May 1959, I wrote my last law exam and the next day commenced the practice of law in Barrie, the county seat for Simcoe. There I soon met the sheriff and registrar of the courts for Simcoe county. Notwithstanding the age difference, he befriended the young lawyer with warmth and sound advice. His name -- Ernest Charles Drury, the Premier of Ontario from 1919 to 1923.

The former Premier had an eloquence of speech in a Churchillian fashion. He always displayed kindness and gentlemanliness to even the worst criminal appearing before the courts. His style was grand; his spirit was gentle.

When the United Farmers of Ontario won the election of 1919, they had no leader. After a number of others declined, Mr. Drury finally accepted the responsibility. In his four years of government, Mr. Drury achieved major agrarian reforms. Much of Ontario’s reforestation, reclaiming wasted lands, was initiated. Social reform legislation such as mothers’ allowance was introduced.

How has Ontario honoured Mr. Drury? He would be pleased that a school for the deaf in Milton bears his name. However, here at Queen’s Park I have searched for a building with his name. I have found the names of Macdonald, Mowat, Whitney, Hearst, Ferguson, Hepburn, Frost, Drew -- all former premiers. When will we similarly honour Ernest Drury?

13 40

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Philip: A number of members of this House will be familiar with the document I am holding. In particular, the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) will be familiar with this document, since she is a signatory to it. It is the report of the select committee on retail store hours. The select committee on retail store hours was established by the Liberal government during the third session of the 33rd Parliament.

The report supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario. The Solicitor General will recall evidence before the committee that large mall owners invariably have in their lease agreements a clause requiring merchants to stay open during the days and hours established by the mall.

In my riding, Trilea Centres Inc., owners of Shoppers World Albion, has delivered letters to each of the merchants telling them that their businesses must be open on Sunday, December 27. Similar letters have been sent to merchants in Northgate mall in the city of North Bay.

Merchants are angry at this government for its flip-flop in policy, for its ignoring of recommendations of the select committee, the select committee of which the Solicitor General was a member; which recommendations, indeed, she signed herself.

I ask the Solicitor General and the members of the Peterson government what action they are going to take to protect the rights of those merchants who do not want to remain open on Sunday, December 27, or, indeed, on subsequent Sundays in other years? Why are they so against their right of choice? I ask what action are they going to take to protect their rights?

HIGHWAY 93

Mr. McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) and the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton).

In the past, I wrote to them and their predecessors concerning the highway that runs through my riding of Simcoe East. I was told that the matter would be given serious consideration. To date, nothing has happened. I would like to bring this matter to their attention again.

Charles Drury was appointed as the Premier’s first Minister of Agriculture in 1888. His son, E. C. Drury, served as Premier of Ontario from 1919 to 1923, along with the father of the present Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of Economics (Mr. R. F. Nixon). The Treasurer’s father served in the same cabinet with Mr. Drury at the time. At present, Robert Drury is currently reeve of Oro township. He is a grandson of E. C. Drury.

My colleague the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Owen) wants to know how to honour him, and I can tell the government how it can be done.

As the government can see, this area is steeped in history. I believe the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation can honour this history by designating Highway 93 as a heritage highway in 1988, which is the 100th anniversary of Charles Drury’s appointment as Ontario’s first Minister of Agriculture.

As the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and his colleague will know, their ministries have been approached by members of the county council in the past for Highway 93 to be designated as a heritage highway. Simcoe county supports it, the municipalities support it, I support it and I understand that my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre would also support it.

STOP ACCIDENT FATALITIES EVERYWHERE

Mrs. Fawcett: I would like to congratulate the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) on the fine efforts of the reduce impaired driving everywhere program.

Today, I would like to draw to the attention of the members of this House a new initiative called Stop Accident Fatalities Everywhere. SAFE was recently launched by the community of Caledon and the Ontario Provincial Police detachment there.

Drivers who want to participate in the program drive with their headlights on during daylight hours. Officers watch for motorists who are driving at the speed limit, are wearing seatbelts, are obeying the rules of the road, are displaying good, defensive driving techniques and are displaying at least one courtesy, such as stopping to allow a pedestrian to cross.

Once stopped, the driver is presented with a SAFE award certificate and given a SAFE bumper sticker. Community organizations, private residents and corporations were contacted for assistance. Many businesses provided financial support, while some citizens lent their expertise.

These constituents in the riding of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs, the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mrs. Wilson), are to be congratulated for such a positive driving program.

I wish to make special recognition of Constable Evelyn McLean, who spearheaded the program and developed the idea with the help of the community.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mrs. Grier: Today, in the Supreme Court of Ontario, Energy Probe is arguing that the Environmental Assessment Act should be applied to the construction and operation of the tritium removal plant in Darlington.

Opposing Energy Probe in court is not just a lawyer for Ontario Hydro but a lawyer from the Ministry of the Environment. We have the spectacle of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) in the outrageous position of arguing against, instead of for, an environmental assessment.

The tritium removal plant may be operating shortly, having been subjected to no public hearings. If Ontario Hydro gets away with this failure to abide by the Environmental Assessment Act, helped along by the Minister of the Environment, can other Ontario Hydro facilities be far behind?

Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to pay tribute to a former member of the assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement?

Agreed to.

GEORGE TAYLOR FULFORD

Mr. Runciman: I would like to draw the members’ attention to the passing in Brockville on Tuesday of George Taylor Fulford, Liberal representative for Leeds in this House from 1934 to 1937, the last Liberal to represent the riding, by the way, although admittedly they came close a few months ago.

George had the distinction of serving his constituents not only in the Legislature but also in the House of Commons on two occasions, between 1940 and 1953, for a period of nine years.

Mr. Fulford entered the political arena when he was 21, as a member of Brockville’s municipal council. During his tenure as a member of this assembly, he was instrumental in the development of the four-lane highway between Brockville and Long Beach.

Mr. Fulford had the unique distinction of being both a dedicated Liberal and a loyal Conservative in his lifetime. In the early 1970s, Mr. Fulford, along with the late Tom Cossitt and most of the executive of the Leeds Liberal Association, joined the Conservative Party. He remained a good supporter of the Ontario Conservative Party.

Mr. Fulford was a well-known philanthropist and I believe the University of Toronto, from which he graduated in 1924, was the beneficiary of his and his family’s generosity. Many institutions and parks in eastern Ontario exist today as a result of his interest and financial aid.

He was a name in the sports life of Ontario for many years, perhaps best known for the semi-pro baseball and hockey teams he sponsored. One, the Brockville Magedomas, was a contender for the Allan Cup.

Mr. Fulford was the retired head of the family’s patent medicine company which now has its headquarters in Toronto. Perhaps one of that company’s best-known products was “Pink Pills for Pale People.”

I thank the members of this House for joining me in expressing condolences to the family and in paying tribute to the contributions Mr. Fulford made to this province and to this country.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to offer, on behalf of our caucus, our condolences to the family. The Fulford name is well-known throughout eastern Ontario. He had a very distinguished political career in addition to many other things. He was one of the few people who represented his constituency at the municipal level, the provincial level and the federal level. That is quite an accomplishment. We would like to offer our respects to the family and pay tribute to a very fine resident of eastern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to join my friends the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) in this tribute to the late George Fulford, a man with whom my grandfather sat in this assembly in the period of the 1934-37 assembly.

The member for Leeds-Grenville properly draws attention to the late Mr. Fulford’s political and business interests. I well remember as a youngster growing up listening to my grandfather talk about his friend in Brockville who had by then changed his political affiliation, but who was always mentioned along with the phrase “Pink Pills for Pale People.”

I know the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has some stories as well because his father sat with George Fulford. As the member for Leeds-Grenville has pointed out, he played a very important role in the political life of Leeds county. I well remember visiting that beautiful home in Brockville, one of the most spectacular examples of turn-of-the-century architecture that I think could be found anywhere in Ontario.

When the member speaks about this former member’s involvement, I am reminded about those days when Brockville was, as I think the Treasurer will agree, a hotbed of Liberalism, because there were some very prominent senators who used to maintain some very active quarters in that city, but I am also reminded of the contribution he made at the federal level, as well as his municipal experience.

On behalf of the government and on behalf of the Liberal Party, we want to pay tribute to Mr. Fulford for the contribution he made, which was not inconsiderable over the many years in which he played a very important role in the public life of this province.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all the members of the assembly, I will make certain that your words of sympathy are sent to the Fulford family as soon as Hansard is printed.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I will be introducing legislation later today to establish a new system of voter identification for municipal and school board elections. I would like to take a few minutes now to tell the Legislature about the new system, which I intend to have in place in time for the 1988 municipal elections.

The current door-to-door enumeration system conducted in the fall before municipal elections has a number of weaknesses that are of concern to me and to my colleagues, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward).

There has traditionally been a problem with accuracy. In some cases, people have been left off the voters’ list. In others, information that appears on the list has been inaccurate.

One cause of these inaccuracies is the difficulty enumerators have in asking potential voters questions about such personal matters as religion and language in order to determine school support. Recent changes to the Education Act have made it essential that the identification of English-language and French-language electors be as accurate as possible.

To address these concerns, I intend to introduce a bill that will replace the current door-to-door enumeration with a bilingual questionnaire, to be mailed out and returned in the spring.

This will have a number of advantages over the old system. It will increase the accuracy and completeness of voters’ lists. It will eliminate the problems encountered by enumerators asking potential voters personal questions. It will meet our concerns that electors be identified as accurately as possible on the basis of language rights, and it will provide timely population and electoral data for determining municipal election representation and the size and the composition of school boards.

Because voter identification under the new system will take place in the spring rather than in the fall, voters will have more time and increased opportunities to ensure that information about them on the voters’ list is correct.

I would like to take a minute to describe the voter identification process as it would occur under the new system.

At the beginning of May in each election year, a bilingual questionnaire, including instructions on how to fill it out, will be mailed directly to all households and other premises by the Ministry of Revenue. All persons will be required to return these forms on or before a day designated by the Minister of Revenue, which will be approximately May 15.

During a six-week follow-up period, enumerators will visit households which have not yet returned their questionnaires. The enumerators will collect the forms or assist individuals in completing them.

If no return is filed even after this follow-up, the electoral status of an individual will be based on the ownership or tenancy data as indicated on the assessment roll.

A preliminary list of electors will be produced by the Ministry of Revenue and sent to the municipal clerks by July 31. A voter identification notice showing the electoral status of each person will be mailed to every household by the Ministry of Revenue by August 31. People will again have the opportunity to make changes to the list during the revision period, which begins on the first Tuesday in September and ends on the Monday 28 days before voting day.

Following the revision period, the municipal clerk will make the necessary changes to the preliminary list of electors. The revised list will then become the voters’ list. However, even at this stage a voter who has been missed can get a certificate of eligibility from the clerk.

In nonelection years, the list will be continuously updated through several mechanisms, such as changes of ownership and the assessment roll.

In addition to the extensive safeguards built into the system, the government plans further measures to ensure that no one who wants to vote is left off the list.

We will begin a comprehensive public information campaign in the early spring, not only in English and French but also in a variety of other languages, to explain the new system to the voters of Ontario. This information campaign will prepare voters for the arrival of the voter identification form in the mail.

We also plan to set up a network of community groups to assist people whose first language is neither English nor French to complete the forms.

Without an accurate and efficient method of identifying voters, the democratic system cannot function properly. The system I have outlined is another step towards one of my ministry’s most important goals: strong, accountable local government across Ontario.

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Hon. Mr. Ward: Later today I will be introducing a bill to change the method of the apportionment of trustee representation on Ontario school boards.

The major revision, which we propose to have in place in time for next year’s municipal elections, will change the basis for trustee representation from that of assessment to that of population. The new bill will use population for four electoral groups: the public school English-language electoral group, the public school French-language electoral group, the separate school English-language electoral group and the separate school French-language electoral group.

The bill replaces residential and farm assessment data with population data for determining the number of members on a board for each electoral group. This bill also amends parts of the French-language governance legislation, or Bill 75, to remove the dependence on student enrolment data for determining representation. With enumeration data available under the permanent voters’ list proposal, this mechanism is no longer necessary. However, the minimum guarantee of three members for minority-language governance is preserved.

Because of the unique two-tiered structure in Metropolitan Toronto, public boards in Metro are not covered at this time. Amendments to legislation will be introduced after the boards’ proposals for implementing the principles of this bill have been analysed.

At the present time, Ontario is the only province in Canada that has trustee apportionment based on assessment rather than on population. The change will make Ontario conform with current practice across Canada with respect to municipal, provincial and federal elections, all of which are based on representation by population.

This bill is the result of the work of the Joint Committee on Trustee Distribution, which was composed of representatives of the Ontario School Trustees’ Council and the Ministry of Education. In undertaking its work, the joint committee studied a wide variety of submissions and consulted with trustee and parents’ groups, provincial municipal associations, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Revenue.

I am pleased to inform the members that the report of the joint committee, upon which these amendments have been based, was approved unanimously by the presidents of each of the five provincial trustee associations of Ontario.

SMALL BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to table today The State of Small Business, 1987, the report of the committee of parliamentary assistants for small business. This is the second annual report on small business presented by the committee, which is chaired by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro).

The State of Small Business report expresses the committee’s vision of Ontario small business, a vision of creativity and drive. In its report the committee has identified top priorities for small business in the next few months: namely, tax reform and new measures in equity financing. I look forward to working with them on these issues.

This document is an excellent source of facts on small business. I know that it will be very useful to members, the business community and those who study and report on this vital sector of our economy.

This year’s report highlights the dynamic growth of Ontario small business. From 1978 to 1984, over half a million jobs were created by business starts in this province. The new report shows how important it is that those firms continue to succeed and grow. Less than five per cent of the firms employing fewer than 20 people in 1976 grew into medium-sized businesses by 1984, yet they account for 46 per cent of all new jobs created.

The amazing vitality of Ontario’s small business sector is demonstrated in the startup of new companies through the new ventures program. New ventures, a Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology program operated in partnership with private lenders, has assisted the startup of over 4,000 young firms in a little over a year, stimulating over $50 million of new financing. These new firms will bring enormous returns to the province in jobs, wealth and innovation.

We all know that starting and running a successful business is not a simple task. We still have an underdeveloped risk capital market in which some young and growing companies are starved for equity investment. Too many people are starting companies without a solid base of skills or without the market research they need to develop a credible business plan. We are working with Ontario entrepreneurs on these issues.

1400

The report makes recommendations that merit serious consideration. Among them is a proposal to include small business in economic impact statements that accompany cabinet submissions on issues affecting small business.

The committee has also recommended that the government appoint a private sector advisory committee on small business to work with my ministry and the committee.

I am pleased to announce that we are reappointing the member for Guelph as Ontario’s small business advocate. We are also appointing a committee of seven parliamentary assistants to work with him.

The member for Guelph and all members of his committee deserve thanks for their thorough work in the past year, and I congratulate them on the presentation of this report.

FARM IMPLEMENTS

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We always leave the best till the last.

Later today I will be tabling for first reading the proposed Farm Implements Act.

As the members of the House know, farming continues to be a capital intensive industry requiring Ontario farmers to make considerable investments in farm machinery. This new act has been developed in response to long-standing requests made by farmers and the retail equipment sector to develop standards for the industry covering the sales, service, warranty and safety of farm equipment.

This act would replace the voluntary certification program which was based on the farm machinery code. Support for his voluntary program, which was introduced in 1980, has diminished in recent years.

The new act calls for a registration system for distributors and dealers, as well as standardized sales contracts, establishment of minimum warranties and guarantees for the availability of parts.

Also included in the act are provisions to return equipment that fails to perform to manufacturers’ specifications, supervision of safety measures and provision for buyback agreements between distributors and dealers.

The Farm Implements Act would be administered by a board consisting of representatives of machinery manufacturers, farm groups, wholesalers, retail dealers and individual farmers. The board would also be authorized to mediate disputes between farmers and the equipment industry.

This legislation fulfils yet another election promise, and I urge the House to pass this legislation to standardize the practices of Ontario’s retail and wholesale farm machinery sector and provide consumer protection for our farmers.

RESPONSES

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to respond briefly to the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) on what is now called voter identification, which always has been known as enumeration. I do not know why we need the new title, but we now have one.

Almost anything would be an improvement, and I think that is a given. Most of us are amused when we read the stories in every election of the dogs, the pickup trucks, the tombstones that make their way on to the voters’ lists. Anything that improves upon that situation is indeed welcome.

I am an advocate of a permanent, established voters list for all three levels of government, and I think we are generally moving in that direction.

I see a couple of problem areas that have to be resolved. The first major one is that the computers in the Ministry of Revenue will have to do the job right at first crack for the first time in their history. That is highly unlikely to happen, but we should always give it another chance.

The second one is that basically there is a component part of this which is very much like the old on-the-street enumeration. That has always been the most difficult part of the process, and it is complicated in a modern society by the fact that we do have people who speak many languages and people who are not at home in the same way they traditionally have been. So we can see a couple of areas where it is going to be difficult.

I certainly hope that it would be a first step in establishing a permanent voters’ list that would be suitable for use in all forms of general elections. It is not going to be an easy task. I do not want to make the unfortunate prediction that this will be all screwed up by late spring. I hope it will not be and I wish the minister well in his endeavours, but it involves more than one ministry doing the job right. Having watched governments function for some time around here, it will be a first if this happens.

RECENSEMENT ÉLECTORAL

Mlle Martel: Je voudrais dire quelques mots au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones (M. Grandmaître) à propos de l’annonce faite par son collègue cet après-midi. Je voudrais le féliciter d’avoir accepté les principes énoncés par l’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens à propos du recensement électoral. J’espère bien qu'il va faire une campagne publicitaire avant le recensement pour en aviser le public et pour encourager le public à remplir complètement le questionnaire.

Deuxièmement, je sais bien que les changements annoncés cet après-midi vont avoir un grand effet sur l’éducation francophone en Ontario, c’est-à-dire sur les fonds visant l’éducation, avec le nombre des écoles francophones, avec les étudiants aux écoles francophones et, finalement, avec les étudiants francophones admis aux écoles francophones.

Je voudrais lui dire que j’espère que le porte-à-porte fait après le questionnaire va être fait avec le plus de soin et le plus de sensitivité possible envers les francophones.

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Just a few words on the last fill-in, last-minute legislation by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to include school boards, finally, in this whole process. I am glad he got around to doing it, except of course for Metropolitan Toronto, where this is not going to be the case for the coming election. We are going to have the situation across the province where we are actually going to have trustees elected in wards with boundaries different from those the councillors will be elected in.

If one can think of the kind of confusion there already is at the municipal level with all the various positions that are elected, the extra problems that are going to be there because of that, whether it is in Sault Ste. Marie or the city of Toronto, are enormous. I wish he had thought this out well in advance instead of bringing it in at the last minute to fill in a gap that he has left.

FARM IMPLEMENTS

Mr. Wildman: Just a brief comment on the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) of the introduction of the Farm Implements Act. I welcome this announcement. The comment by the minister that the voluntary program has lost support is certainly an understatement. It never really worked and I am glad the minister is finally implementing my bill, which I first introduced in 1977 and reintroduced many times ever since. Hopefully this will resolve the problems of service and living up to warranties and, particularly, making parts available when they are needed, because it seems that major breakdowns occur just when machines are needed at seeding time or at harvest and the parts so often are not available.

Thank goodness the minister has finally agreed to my legislation.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Sterling:: I would like to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) with regard to the report, The State of Small Business. I think the greatest difference between this year’s and last year’s annual reports is that this time it is red on white and last year it was white on red.

For a cost of $88,000 to the Ontario taxpayers, we have had eight parliamentary assistants produce this report. I think it is most noteworthy to look on page 80 of the report, where it says, “The powerful economic recovery in Ontario...has been rather uneven. The northern and eastern parts of the province have not had an easy time of it.” Then it says, “This is why the government has directed so many programs, especially financial...at helping northerners establish new businesses.”

It does not even mention eastern Ontario. It is obvious that this government does not care one hoot about eastern Ontario and development in that area. It is about time it spent a little time considering that eastern Ontario, as well as northern Ontario, has a tough time of it.

Notwithstanding that, we have confidence that the small business community can overcome this small business committee.

FARM IMPLEMENTS

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to comment briefly on the announcement today by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) on the Farm Implements Act. Yes, it is a good idea to standardize sales contracts and to bring the playing field level, particularly when it applies to our farmers and our farm implement dealers.

However, the big problem is that farmers must be able to afford to buy some equipment. Our cash crop producers and our grain producers, in particular, over the last three years, have suffered a one-third reduction in their gross farm income.

This government promised to double the budget in relation to agriculture. It has brought it up by less than one half of one per cent. That is not a promise that was kept by this government or this minister.

This government has placed agriculture at a very low profile at the cabinet level, and I believe it is a shame. Yes, we must have standard sales contracts and what have you, but farmers must be able to afford to purchase equipment, and right now I am wondering whether they can or not.

1410

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Mr. Jackson: Our party wishes to comment on the announcement today of the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) about the changes in the apportionment of trustee representation in Ontario.

It is important to note that it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) who assured this House that by fast-tracking Bill 29 there would be no problems. Yet within a week and a half of that statement, we now have the Minister of Education rising to tell us, “That is fine, but we will be unable to resolve matters with respect to trustee representation within that same jurisdiction.” In fact, we are not even getting a clear statement as to when those matters for the world’s largest trustee-represented area will be resolved.

Our party will be anxious to know if this legislation, of which we do not have a copy in front of us, will be sent to committee to ensure that all members of this House are able to consult widely with their own boards and to ensure that certain matters have been protected in their own jurisdictions.

First of all, we will want to consider the impact on minority-language governance to ensure that appropriate levels of representation have been maintained and honoured. We will be anxious to see the government’s position and whether this will go to committee and enable the trustees, educators and ratepayers to provide further and final input.

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

Mr. McCague: I would like to comment briefly on the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) today. As has been mentioned, we all welcome anything that can be done to get a better voters’ list at the time of elections.

It seems that a lot of the cause of this is the difficulty that people have in answering a question about their language or religion. However, I think an education system will help greatly, and that is the part of it that must be emphasized, because I see this as being rather confusing to the average taxpayer, the average citizen of the province, and therefore the education part at the very start is going to be very important.

We will pledge our party’s support to the minister in accomplishing a permanent voters’ list in the near future.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask a question to the Premier. On October 7, 1987, after one of the earliest premiers’ conferences -- I think the first premiers’ conference after the announcement of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States -- the Premier was quoted in the Toronto Star of October 7 as follows:

“Although he is ready to take part in a ‘national debate’ about it, he said he plans no concrete action to try to stop it. ‘I would never work to undermine my colleagues or the Prime Minister,’ Peterson said.”

At that same time, the Premier also said he did not think it was a good idea or, to quote his words, “a hell of a good idea” to have a resolution from the Legislature condemning the deal. Apparently, he has changed his mind on that.

Yesterday the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) described an assertion that the agreement fell mainly within the federal jurisdiction and an assertion that the federal government had the right to sign the deal unilaterally, as “insensitive, confrontational, misleading and at worst, simply wrong.”

I think we are entitled to know who is speaking now for the government of Ontario and just what the government of Ontario intends to do to stop the deal.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: My question to the Premier is this: is it his view that the federal government has the constitutional power to go ahead with this deal? And if it is his view that they do not, which is the view I heard clearly expressed yesterday by the Attorney General, surely we are entitled to know just what he is going to do --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Premier.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have answered that question on many occasions. I could answer and explain some of the quotes that he pulls out and relates in contexts that are not relatable. But the answer is yes, they have the right to sign a treaty; no, they do not have the right to sign a treaty with respect to matters of provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me quote from page 6 of the Attorney General’s speech yesterday:

“The federal government claims it has the constitutional right to sign and implement the agreement unilaterally, regardless of provincial objections. Both of these claims require careful scrutiny.”

He is referring to the other claim about the fact the agreement was in the federal jurisdiction 97 per cent, something the Premier himself has said on a number of occasions; the Attorney General says he is wrong on that front. He says:

“In fact, I want to suggest that these two federal assertions about the agreement are insensitive, confrontational, misleading, and at worst, simply wrong.”

What the Attorney General is saying is that an assertion that the federal government has the unilateral right to sign the agreement is wrong. He says it: “to sign and implement the agreement.”

I would like to ask the Premier what he intends to do at this late date to get the federal government to agree not to sign the deal. Is he going to launch the kind of constitutional challenge on behalf of Ontario that would have the clear effect of signalling to the federal government that this is a fundamental breach of the relationship between the federal government and the provinces and that he regards it as such?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to my friend opposite, I do not agree with his interpretation of the Attorney General’s speech. If my friend disagrees with me, he should ask the Attorney General, because obviously my friend does not read it the same way that he read it and wants to put his own interpretation on the matter

The answer to the question -- we answered it yesterday and discussed it yesterday -- is that it is the legal opinion of the government, as expressed through the Attorney General, that at this moment there is nothing to take on a constitutional reference. We could frame a theoretical question, but the theoretical question may very well have nothing to do with the reality. The court would probably not be predisposed to dealing with that theoretical question or the hundreds of theoretical questions we could possibly put to it. So the answer to the question is no.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps the Premier can tell us, is he prepared to tell us today that he is in fact going to launch a constitutional challenge either on the treaty itself, on a referred question or on legislation that flows from it? Is he prepared to stand today and signal to the federal government, before his meeting tomorrow, that it is his intention to launch a constitutional challenge? Surely, in the light of the Attorney General’s speech yesterday, we are allowed an answer to that simple question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I answered the simple question yesterday, but I will tell my friend again the simple answer to his simple question. Number one, it is not our advice to launch a constitutional challenge on the treaty, because they have the right to do so. Number two, it is not our intention to frame a bunch of theoretical questions that may or may not be part of implementing legislation in the future. Number three, it is possible, very clearly, that there could be a court challenge on implementation legislation, obviously depending on what comes forward. That is the very clear answer --

Mr. B. Rae: I’m sure that will make them tremble in their boots in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: They sure do not tremble in their boots when my friend goes to Washington. He helps the other side; that is the problem.

HOURS OF WORK

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Local 1005 of the United Steelworkers of America and I have given the minister specific examples of overtime violations at Stelco, violations which in many cases were not investigated months later, and there certainly have been no charges.

The minister stated in response to my question on December 10, “There is disagreement as to what actually constitutes overtime; whether the terms of the collective agreement...or...the Employment Standards Act ought to apply,” an inference that seems to question the evidence presented. The minister also implied that we were always accusing him of not doing his job and trying to use this for political or partisan reasons.

What kind of evidence does the Minister of Labour need to prosecute Stelco for violations of the Employment Standards Act with respect to excessive, illegal overtime?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is a very good question, because it gives me an opportunity to expand just somewhat on the reference I made in answer to that question back on December 10.

There are some workers there within that local who are working within the construction sector and so are not covered by the same provisions under the Employment Standards Act. There is some dispute additionally as to the specific provisions that apply within the collective agreement.

I will tell my friend the member for Hamilton East as well that we have investigators from the employment standards branch looking into the matter --

Mr. B. Rae: You’ve had eight months.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I will tell my friend the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) also -- the investigators are trying to agree on a list of names of workers, pursuant to the letter that was sent to us by Ray Silenzi. There will be a thorough examination of their work records, and if charges are appropriate after that investigation, then they will be laid.

1420

Mr. Mackenzie: The union knows that Stelco is breaking the law. Stelco knows that Stelco is breaking the law. I want to quote to the minister, if he has not seen them, two internal Stelco memos; these were back shortly before the letter he got from the president of the local. Let me read the two brief sentences.

The first one is to the mechanical department and it deals with some of the excess hours and the contracting we are talking about. This is a memo to the superintendents in the plant:

“Clause 20(1)(a) of the Employment Standards Act, 1980, states that the employees in maintenance occupations may work up to 60 hours per week. This of course does not include overtime hours required for emergency purposes. Records are kept by the employment department and the employees appearing on this list have worked beyond the prescribed limits, in contravention of the act.” I ask the minister to listen. “The bottom line is that we are breaking the law.”

The second memo is minutes from the five plant superintendents’ meeting, back also in November, under the heading “Overtime”:

“Still excessive in some areas, with illegal levels being worked in a number of instances. Superintendents should bear in mind possible serious consequences and make every effort to reduce the overtime.”

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister explain why he has not been able to enforce the law? Is he incapable of enforcing it -- if so, he should step down from his job -- or is he simply playing the role of a handmaiden to Stelco?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I just recently stepped into my job and I actually feel quite comfortable. I plan on staying here quite some time, with the concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor.

It is not appropriate for me to comment on confidential memos. If my friend the member for Hamilton East wants to provide me with those documents, I would be happy to provide them to the investigators.

The difference between an allegation by the union that the law is being broken, or an allegation by individual members or by the member for Hamilton East or by anyone else, is that those are simply allegations; but members know, and the member for Hamilton East knows quite well, that when prosecutions are contemplated it is not simply a matter of having allegations, it is having sufficient evidence to know that when you go to court you can have not only an allegation and a charge but a conviction as well.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am sure the minister knows that his investigators could have had those documents and the lists referred to by the company at any time. With the clear admission by Stelco that it has broken the law, can we now expect the minister to carry out his duties as a minister of the crown and see that charges are laid?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In reference to the question my friend brings up, and that is the law in this respect, he will know we have done very extensive work, through the task force that Arthur Donner led, to create a new regime, because the current regime -- I agree with my friend -- has grave deficiencies.

If our investigations at Stelco determine that in this particular case, given a policy on prosecutions in cases of overtime violations, prosecutions are warranted, then they will be proceeded with. I tell my friend, though, there are violations of overtime provisions in countless businesses around the province and what we really need is a better, clearer regime. I anticipate bringing about a better, clearer regime, based on the work that Arthur Donner did for this government and this assembly.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier, and it is related to a statement the Premier made back in 1985. This is a very important matter on educational funding, I would advise him in advance.

His statement at that time was, and I am quoting directly from a speech that the Premier gave, “It would be the intention of the Ontario Liberal Party to restore this level to a minimum of 60 per cent, on the average, across the province -- ”-and I want to underline the last words that he used – “during our first term of office.”

I know the former Minister of Education is advising the Premier very quickly as to what the right response should be to this question. If the two of them would like to stand and answer the question in concert, that is fine too. I do not mind.

The question I have is, since the level of education funding has gone down -- I am trying to read the former minister’s lips, and then I might change the direction of my question -- from the time the Premier took office, and since he made a very specific commitment to fund 60 per cent as an appropriate level of funding on the part of the province, is it his intention to keep the promise as it relates to education funding?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The former Minister of Education told me to tell the member that it is always our intention to keep the promise.

Mr. Jackson: It is now apparent and obvious to this House why the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) has earned the affectionate nickname Edgar Bergen.

On December 11, 1984, the Liberal member for Renfrew North tabled a motion of nonconfidence in the then government based on the government’s education policies. The motion in part asked the House to vote nonconfidence in the government because of “the policy of the government to refuse to provide capital funds to school boards for the building of school facilities in those areas of the province where overcrowding and the use of portables are at a crisis stage. ”

The crisis in the use of portables has significantly increased under his government. According to his own ministry figures, since 1985, portables have increased in this province by 39 per cent, from 4,096 portables up to 5,710 portables currently in use. The increases in capital funding for this purpose have not kept pace with the increased demand.

My question to the Premier is, when does he intend to begin to reduce the number of students who are forced to use portables? When will he fund to the level he promised, at least back to December 11, 1984, when, at that low level he considered it to be a crisis?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s question. You know, I remember very well the eloquent speeches of my colleague, now the former minister, who so incisively penetrated some of the inadequacies of the education policy of the former government. May I say in candour that, had the former government followed the advice of the then member of the opposition, we would not have had to deal with the problems today that we are having to deal with. So I say he was again prescient.

I think the member will find that under his leadership and that of the now Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) we have reasserted the importance and the pre-eminence of education as a priority in this province. If one looks back over the increase of funding over the last couple of years -- and I am not here to tell members that there are not problems, because there are problems -- if one looks at his tripling of the capital budget to meet some of the problems that had lain neglected for some 10 or so years, I think one will see a government in terms of two ministers who have made a very substantial commitment, and we are going to rectify the problems we inherited.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier knows full well that his promise was to increase education funding and to reduce the number of portables. Those were the promises he made. Neither of those two questions has been answered, so I will go on to the next one.

Since the Premier accuses the former government of not following the very sage and very specific advice of the former Minister of Education, why would he not take the advice of his own colleague and do the things he recommended in such a vociferous and aggressive fashion when he was in opposition? Why would he not follow his advice and implement those things that he promised the people of Ontario he was going to do? Why does he not keep the promise?

1430

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me congratulate the two gentlemen opposite on the way they arranged the questions back and forth.

I spent part of last night with Mr. T, the member will be happy to know, and he was telling about some of the wrestling rules and how they pass off on tag teams when they get into trouble, the way those two gentlemen opposite have done. They run and touch hands and pass it down the bench.

Let me say to my honourable friend that we as a government understand there are problems. We do not try to duck our responsibility in that regard. We have started with a very major commitment, particularly to primary, elementary and secondary education, as well as to the post-secondary levels in the skills training areas because that is a priority for this government.

We are making substantial progress. I wish we could solve all the problems in one day. The member constantly refers to the capital allocation. It was tripled from, in the last year of his government -- he will correct me if my figures are wrong -- some $74 million to $226 million. I believe my figures are right.

I wish we could put up a school in one day but we cannot. These things take planning and time but we are working closely with the school boards in this regard. I cannot argue that what we do will ever be enough, but I will say that we have reasserted that priority and we are seeing morale coming back into our school system the likes of which the member has not seen. I am happy to work with the school boards, the teachers, the parents, all who care about this, to make sure we have an educational system second to none.

Mr. Brandt: I have heard that speech before somewhere, but let me simply say to the Premier that I appreciate the fact that he is now having --

Mr. Speaker: Fine, and the new question is to which minister?

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Brandt: My question is of the Minister of Housing. I had not indicated that because I wanted to finish with the Premier.

The question to the Minister of Housing is related to the issue of the number of affordable rental units her ministry intends to construct by the year 1989. The minister has indicated and the government is committed to a total of 102,000 units. At some later stage, the announcement was expanded to the years 1985 to 1990 and that would be the time frame for which she would construct those affordable housing units. She maintained the number of 102,000.

Now, in estimates, she is apparently saying there will be further delays as a result of shortages in materials and manpower. Is she breaking the commitment she has made to the people of Ontario to construct 102,000 housing units by 1990, which is one year longer than was promised in this advertisement during the course of the 1987 election? Would she give us her intentions as to how many units she thinks she can construct?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In direct answer to the question of the member opposite, no, we do not intend to break our promise. We will indeed be building 102,000 units of housing for the people of Ontario by the year 1990, both new buildings and through renovation.

Mr. Cousens: The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) has tried to get an answer and at least have something happen by 1990. Indeed, this House knows there was a promise that there would be 102,000 affordable homes by 1989. Already there is a moving away from the promise that was made. In 1985, there was a Liberal election promise that would have placed a ceiling on rental units at four per cent. Also in 1985, there was a promise to establish a central rental registry. Everyone knows they did not succeed in keeping rental ceilings at four per cent.

Can the minister tell this House and the tenants when she will meet the three-year-old promise of the rent registry being fully implemented?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am glad to answer that question for the honourable member opposite. The rent registry is operational now. There are about 150,000 addresses with the exact rent on them right now on the computer. They will be increased to the full amount of about 550,000. There are going to be, starting very soon, 10,000 mailed out every single day for the next number of months to inform people of their legal rent. This is one of the things we were able to do that has not been done before, that establishes a base legal rent for most of the apartments in Ontario.

Mr. Cousens: The minister still has not answered the question as to when this rent registry will be completed. It is really only five per cent done, so that is a promise that has been broken.

I have another broken promise from this Liberal government. During the election campaign, another of the great promises that a lot of people liked and probably voted for the Liberals because of is the Ontario home ownership savings plan, which was announced on August 14 by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in Kingston. Everyone assumed that this program would be in place in the 1987 tax year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am having a little difficulty. I hope this supplementary relates to the previous response.

Mr. Cousens: The Ontario home ownership savings plan was announced and promised by the government in August of this year during the election campaign, and it has not been introduced in the tax year 1987, as was expected.

Given the current crisis in housing and the need to help first-time home buyers, will the minister adopt a proposal supported by our party and by many other people of eliminating land transfer taxes for first-time home buyers?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: We will be doing anything that we think is reasonable to increase the affordability of housing for first-time buyers. Our home ownership savings plan is exactly that kind of proposal. It is being worked on right now by the Treasury and the Ministry of Revenue, along with the people in the Ministry of Housing. It will be announced for the 1988 tax year, and I will take any other reasonable suggestions very seriously.

PROJECT 3000

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning her Project 3000 program. Why has her ministry decimated a program that was specifically designed to meet the housing needs of people with special needs, a program that has been in operation for a couple of years? People know about it. There is a whole network of people out there wanting to make proposals under this. Her ministry has been averaging about 1,500 units for the last two years. Why has the minister cut that back to only 330 units for the next three years? Why did she decimate a program that actually worked?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Project 3000 was an allocation of 3,000 units, in particular for people with special needs. It was announced once and then it was to be allocated over three years. The member opposite is correct that it has been a very successful program.

It is partly because of that program that we also introduced a program called Supportive Community Living, which is an additional 1,000 units for people with special needs who also need various kinds of supports to be able to live independently in the community.

Our commitment to those programs remains and we are bringing those projects forward. They have indeed been very successful and many, many people are now living in housing they would otherwise not be able to occupy.

Mr. Breaugh: In the middle of the election, in August, the Minister of Housing in Ontario approved 2,000 units under this one program alone. By December, the minister had cut the program to 330 units a year for the next three years. Can she explain the dramatic difference between August and December? Have all the needs been met or is the truth simply that the election is over?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The commitment to 3,000 units under Project 3000 is there, and they will be built. The commitment of 1,000 units to Supportive Community Living is there, and they will be built over two to three years. I have that commitment. It will happen.

1440

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Eves: My question is to the Minister of Health. On January 22, 1985, her party promised to eliminate Ontario health insurance plan premiums within five years. On March 7, 1985, her party promised to establish a denticare program for children and needy seniors throughout Ontario. When is she going to live up to these commitments?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: There are many commitments that we have made to the people of Ontario regarding health care, and I am proud to say that we have been making great progress towards them. I would like to point out to the member opposite that in fact our capital program of $850 million in addressing over a decade of underfunding of health facilities is one of the most significant capital programs in health care spending in decades.

Mr. Eves: As usual, the minister has not even answered the question. During the 1985 election campaign, her party stated that it would eliminate OHIP premiums and would phase them out by raising personal and corporate income taxes in Ontario. She has had three budgets since then. The Liberals have raised personal and corporate income taxes in Ontario, but they have not eliminated OHIP premiums.

The Liberals also stated that they would pay for a denticare program that would serve two million children and senior citizens in Ontario and they would do that by banning extra billing. The money they saved from that would go into the denticare program. The Liberals have banned extra billing in Ontario; the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has the money. When is the minister going to introduce the denticare program?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to point out to the member opposite that in our almost three years we have not increased OHIP premiums in this province. Further, we have removed from the OHIP premium rolls over 40,000 individuals in this province who under the previous government had to pay OHIP premiums.

BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE

Mrs. O’Neill: My question is to the Minister of Health. I would like to bring to the minister’s attention again the situation in Ottawa at the Red Cross centre, which serves the 29 hospitals in eastern Ontario. I was pleased to receive the minister’s answer in regard to the progress of the capital funding process for this Ottawa centre. While I recognize that the long-term solution is a new blood transfusion centre for Ottawa, I am very concerned about the current overcrowding situation. Is the minister willing to consider alternative solutions to aid the Ottawa centre in the short term?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member for Ottawa-Rideau has raised this question with me, and I recognize and believe that it is important for the Red Cross to have the necessary facilities to be able to provide for an adequate blood supply. In the past two years, this government has been making progress. We have contributed money to build a new head office facility for the Canadian Red Cross Society in Ottawa. As well, we have announced a new transfusion centre in Metropolitan Toronto.

My ministry will consider interim measures to address the issue which the member has raised and to help resolve the current overcrowding situation.

Mrs. O’Neill: I thank the minister for following up on this very important issue which I brought to her attention. I feel, however, that time is of the essence in this matter. When will the interim measures begin?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I understand that staff at the ministry have expressed willingness to meet with representatives of the Canadian Red Cross to discuss any proposals which would solve the current situation in Ottawa on an interim basis. Let me assure the member that we will work actively with the Red Cross to see what we can do in the interim to solve this very important issue.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Health. A week ago Tuesday, the Toronto Star featured an article which detailed the shortage of doctors in northern Ontario The first paragraph of the article starts out by saying, “There’s a wry joke circulating among some newcomers to Ontario’s north: ‘Trying to find a family doctor? Call Toronto.’”

The fact is that many communities across northern Ontario have too few family doctors. Some have only one and some make do with a succession of family doctors who stay for six months or a little longer and then move on.

The situation has existed for some time, and it has certainly existed over the last two and a half years. We have communities in desperate need. When is the Minister of Health going to do something about it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I recognize and share the concern of the member that there are some difficulties that northern communities are having in attracting and keeping doctors in the north. There are a number of incentive programs available right now within the ministry. We provide, on an interim basis, locums where required, and we look to resolve the problems of the individual communities with longer-term solutions through incentive programs and the underserviced area program in the ministry.

Mr. Hampton: The people of northern Ontario are well aware of the incentive programs. Some of them have been around for a while. Some of them offer a few thousand dollars extra for a doctor who locates in northern Ontario. Everybody knows that for doctors in northern Ontario, money is not the issue; they are so busy that they can make more money than they can possibly have the time to spend. Financial incentives do not answer the question at all.

Given that financial incentives do not work, when is the minister going to do what the communities up north are asking: (1) designate a medical school to be a medical school for northern Ontario and set up admissions criteria that will select people who want to practice there; and (2) admit some of the doctors from outside of Canada who want to practice in northern Ontario, who want to intern in northern Ontario. When is the minister going to do that?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say to the member opposite that we believe there are several ways that we can respond to the needs of the northern communities for medical services and medical personnel. We believe, in fact, that there is an adequate supply of medical personnel in the province and that the problems we have are geographic problems. In fact, we have been very successful in placing medical personnel in northern communities, and there are now some 590 physicians who are located in northern communities through the underserviced area program, 181 of whom are qualified specialists.

The issue that he raises is particularly complex, but it is not one of medical supply as opposed to distribution problems. I would be interested in sharing with him solutions to that problem and further discussion.

PHYSIOTHERAPISTS’ FEES

Mr. Eves: I have another question for the Minister of Health. On May 22, 1986, her predecessor, the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston), promised Ontario physiotherapists that the government would close the gap between treatment fees paid to physicians and physiotherapists. The gap at that time was 15 cents. Today, under her government’s stewardship, it is $1.10. Why has she not lived up to that commitment?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is a very healthy day in the Legislature. Let me thank the member for his question and inform him that at the present time negotiations are under way between the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Physiotherapy Association.

I am aware of these issues. I feel that all issues can be resolved through negotiations and that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this time.

Mr. Eves: The minister knows very well, or should know, that those negotiations she speaks of were concluded on November 9 of this year, when the ministry made its final offer of a two per cent increase to the physiotherapists, leaving a 90 per cent gap. It is inconceivable that after her predecessor made this commitment, the gap is now six times larger than it was when he was the minister. When is she going to fulfil the promise?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member opposite would know that the issues he has raised are complex, as opposed to the simplistic approach he has attempted to paint in the Legislature today, and we believe that they are best resolved through the negotiation process.

1450

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since becoming an MPP, I have probably had more complaints in the area of the Workers’ Compensation Board from injured workers than any other area. They favour and speak well of the workers’ advisers, but say they are overworked and that there is a long backlog. They complain that their mail goes unanswered, that their telephone calls are not returned and that doctors’ reports are lost. I know this problem is not unique to this government. In my 30 years as a lawyer, I cannot think that they have ever been free of these complaints. I would like to ask the minister what he is proposing by way of changes so that we can give better service and better help to the injured workers.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I say to my friend the member for Simcoe Centre, welcome to the world of an MPP. All of us have, in the number of years we have been here, had clients within our own offices dealing with specific problems of workers, and the problems of injured workers in particular. My friend asked the question specifically with regard to the office of the worker adviser. Obviously from the tone of his question, he knows that problems have developed and there is somewhat of a backlog there. In his question he asked whether there were major changes being considered.

At this point, we are doing a number of things, including adding additional staff in areas where there is very significant pressure on the office of the worker adviser and, in addition, reviewing the way in which those offices are handling cases to ensure they are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. But the real answer is in reforms within legislation covering the Workers’ Compensation Board so that the injured worker does not have such a severe hurdle to get over before resolving his claim.

Mr. Owen: In the list of complaints that I receive from the injured workers is the Downsview hospital. When the people from our area have to go to this hospital, they have to be hospitalized or have a hotel, which is not usually available. It means they are removed from their families, their children, their wives or their parents. What is being considered by the government simply to eliminate the Downsview hospital and try to look to the local hospitals, the local doctors and the local specialists to try to provide the service which has been complained about for years?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The question of the Downsview rehabilitation centre was the subject of a rather thorough study by Vickery Stoughton some many months ago. My friend will know and he will hear, if the official opposition stays quiet enough so that I can answer his question, that currently there are active discussions going on with the Ministry of Health, between my own ministry and the Workers’ Compensation Board, as to certain proposals contained within that study, including the transfer of the facility to the Ministry of Health. But there are services within the Downsview rehabilitation centre which are unique to the province, delivered in a way that cannot now be provided and is not available anywhere else in the province. There are a number of problems identified by the report and those are being dealt with currently.

I cannot tell my friend that we have the ultimate resolution or we have a conclusive answer, but discussions are going on with the Ministry of Health and we are looking at a number of options, pursuant to our objective for much earlier intervention for physical --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is fine.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food regarding the farm debt crisis. In view of the fact that a total of 11,203 Ontario farm operations, or 28 per cent of all Ontario farms, were either insolvent or experiencing serious cash flow difficulties as of the beginning of this year, and approximately 9,400 of these were in arrears of their debt repayments, and in view of the fact that other provinces provide long-term credit for farmers, will the government change its position and accept the advice of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to develop an integrated financial assistance package for agriculture in this province and consider buying out the Ontario loan portfolio of the Farm Credit Corp.?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: First of all, let me tell the member that the Ontario loan portfolio of the Farm Credit Corp. is not for sale. If one is going to buy something, it has to be for sale. It is not for sale. It is as simple as that.

Second, for the two and a half years that we have formed the government, we have provided all kinds of financial assistance to the farmers. I could just mention the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, the guaranteed operating capital loans program, the land stewardship program and the Ontario Farm-Start program for beginning farmers. I could go on and on and name all the programs we have in place to help the farmers with the financial problems they have today.

Mr. Wildman: No one disputes that the OFFIRR program, for instance, is a good program, but it certainly does not meet the need. I think the minister should admit that, rather than making the kinds of comments he made just now.

Will the government, as requested by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, examine the feasibility of providing financial restructuring assistance to otherwise viable farm operations where there is a mismatch between debt service requirements and capacity?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It has always been my feeling that the federal government has the responsibility, through the Farm Credit Corp., to provide long-term credit for farmers. We did have a long-term credit program in this province at one time, the junior farmer establishment program. Then the Farm Credit Corp. came into being and the junior farmer program was phased out because we did not see the need to duplicate efforts in two credit agencies.

What we have been doing is putting pressure on the federal government to change the role of the Farm Credit Corp. whereby it makes more credit available to farmers, credit at interest rates which are fixed and interest rates which the farmers can cope with.

We have had those recommendations before the federal government for a year and a half now and we feel it is up to the federal government to change the role of the Farm Credit Corp. so that farmers can rely on a source of long-term credit.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Premier. The question relates to an announcement that was made within the last short while with respect to the seventh province that has indicated it is going to support a freer trade agreement with the United States.

Premier McKenna of New Brunswick has now come on side and he indicates there are three provisos for his support. One is that regional subsidies not be affected; second, that the omnibus trade bill not include Canada; and third, if there are any workers who are disfranchised from their positions as a result of the changes in employment patterns in Canada, in his province particularly, he wants assistance for those workers.

What is the Premier’s response to the seven Premiers now, who are attempting to build a stronger Canada through a freer trade agreement with the United States?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am aware of Premier McKenna’s position. I had an opportunity to chat with him today. The member will note that his conditional acceptance is a very tentative one. It is dependent upon the omnibus trade bill not applying to Canada. I can tell members, on the basis of advice that we have at the moment, the omnibus trade bill does apply to Canada.

If there is some change over the next little while, obviously that would make it more attractive if the omnibus trade bill does not apply to us; but the member will notice it is conditional approval.

Also, he talked about adjustment assistance. So far we have had very conflicting signals from Ottawa on that question. On one hand, we hear from Mr. Bouchard we are going to lose 500,000 jobs as a result of it. The Prime Minister says there will be massive assistance for readjustment for those people who lose their jobs as a result of it. Then Mr. Wilson the next day says there will not.

1500

My honourable friend must have the same problem I have of whom to believe. What is the real situation with respect to adjustments? He is obviously worried about the food processing industry and a number of others and the ongoing question of regional assistance, which may well be negotiated away over the next five years.

The member will notice that is a tentative approval. All those things, if the conditions are met, would make it more attractive not only for New Brunswick but also for other provinces. There is no very clear indication at all on that, and I do not think one can assume, just because in general the member favours the theory, that those conditions are going to be met.

Mr. Brandt: It is sad to hear the Premier talk about the fact that these premiers are indicating some kind of support in principle. They are very committed to the principle of improving access to American markets, which we are so dependent upon. We now have Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and western Canada, with the exception of one province, virtually unanimous in favour of an agreement which the Premier continues to try to pick holes in.

Admittedly, it is an agreement which is not without flaws, not without weaknesses, not without tradeoffs, but it is an agreement --

Interjection.

Mr. Brandt: I said that for a very simple reason. I recognize, as all members should, that in every agreement you have to negotiate a tradeoff with your trading partner; you have to give up something to get something. When will Ontario get on side, join the majority of the provincial premiers, negotiate, if necessary, with the federal government to improve the deal, which I believe can be done, and get on with the job of nation-building?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to make one preliminary point, if I may. Even though Nova Scotia’s position is not exactly clear, we assume it is going to support the deal. There are a lot of conversations going on between the premiers and the federal government with respect to their special circumstances, as my honourable friend will know, but it is not a regional debate in the sense that there is one western province, one central Canadian province and one eastern province that take the same position on this matter.

My friend stands in this House and says that the deal is flawed, that the deal has got lots of holes in it and that we did not get a particularly good deal; then my friend stands in the House and says we can change the deal. Why does he not stand up and say how he would change the deal and make it better? Why does he not stand up --

Mr. Brandt: All right. You want me to stand up right now and tell you how to change the deal.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can say to my honourable friend, absolutely, we have not achieved --

Mr. Brandt: You are the only one saying that. No one else is saying that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will give the member an opportunity in a moment. We have not achieved the thing he thought we achieved, that is, secure access into the United States. I would commend the deal to my honourable friend as good reading. I think he should take more of a briefing on this than just listening to the Prime Minister. He should talk to the experts and the lawyers.

He will find we have not bought one bit of protection from the so-called US protectionist legislation, and that is the reality. They have enshrined US protectionist law against us; we have bought into the process. So we have not achieved what my friend thinks we have achieved. It is not easy --

Mr. Brandt: You are isolating Ontario. There is a price to be paid for this. I tell you that is what you are doing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear a thing. There are a number of other members who would like to ask questions. New question, the member for Brampton South.

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Callahan: My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. The minister recently made an announcement in the House indicating that there will be increased facilities to look into the question of abuse of alcohol and drugs and psychiatric problems. Recognizing that a large majority, if not all cases, particularly of violence, revolve around the abuse of drugs or alcohol or are a result of a person being unfortunate enough to suffer from a psychiatric disorder, I am very pleased as well to see that there is an increase in this facility at the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton.

In the light of these programs, can the minister tell the House how much money has been committed to this increase in these services and also who the staffing people are who will be involved in it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will be quite happy to answer the honourable member’s question. The annual operating budget for the rehabilitation and treatment centre in the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton will be $600,000 a year. Staffing increases will start in January with the hiring of a psychometrist, a psychiatrist and social workers, plus a fee-for-service psychiatrist.

Mr. Callahan: An additional difficulty that has arisen over the years is that when a judge, particularly in the case of somebody with a psychiatric disorder, wishes to send that person to one of these facilities, it is very often necessary to determine whether there is a bed available for the person in custody. The process of the former government, which was one of inactivity, resulted in many people spending days or perhaps weeks in custody until it could be determined whether a bed was available in the facility in order to have the person examined.

I would like to ask the minister, recognizing the technology we have today in terms of computer terminals and the fact that most, if not all, of our provincial courts have terminals on line, would it be possible or would he undertake to look into the question of whether bed availability could be made available on these computer terminals to avoid prisoners being held in custody?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I think that is an excellent question and an excellent proposal by the member for Brampton South. I will be quite happy to look into that and possibly will be quite happy some day to make an announcement of some sort of program like that.

HOUSING FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. There seems now to be considerable doubt whether the minister will meet her objectives with regard to affordable housing, with severe impact on housing for the disabled. If she looks closely at the Ontario home renewal program statistics for the last year of the Tory regime and at her own, she will discover that the available funds for the disabled have exactly plateaued.

If the minister looks at the program she was asked about by my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), Project 3000, we note quite clearly that her own answer did not disagree with the conclusion that this program was reduced to 20 per cent of its former self. We also know her ministry is one of the major roadblocks in the proclamation of the right-to-reasonable-accommodation section of the Ontario Human Rights Code as amended last December. That has been in the hands of her ministry and several others for the last 12 months.

Does that not suggest this is all a very unfortunate commentary upon the commitment and priority in her ministry for housing for the disabled?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The commitment of the Ministry of Housing, and in particular my commitment, to increasing housing for the disabled is very real. I want the member to know that under Project 3000 and under Supportive Community Living that commitment remains and is moving quickly. Under support for the disabled, we have increased the allocation so that those people who currently have asked for funds under the disabled housing program will be getting the support they have asked for.

Mr. Allen: Those are very brave words. If the minister has the time, I would like her to table some comparisons and some real statistics on the question, because it is quite obvious from what has happened with respect to the question my colleague asked that even though she is continuing a program, she has wiped it out to 20 per cent of its former self. She really has. There is no question about that.

The minister must be aware that the most valuable tool in the hands of the disabled with respect to accessing accommodation will be the right to reasonable accommodation in their hands to wield in the marketplace. That will produce infinitely more results than all the minister’s programs currently in place put together. When is she going to overcome the roadblock in her ministry and get this section of the act proclaimed so that the disabled can have the housing and services they need?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) announced in the House a few days ago part of the commitment we have to increasing housing for the disabled. Supportive Community Living, Project 3000 and our own project for housing for the disabled also indicate the degree of our commitment. We will of course be looking at the right to reasonable accommodation very seriously.

1510

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Harris: I wonder if the Minister of Northern Development could tell us when he plans to implement the promise that was made in Sudbury in March 1985, “The Liberal government will provide $20 million to finance a $100-per-household northern Ontario tax credit.” Nothing in 1985, nothing in 1986, and 1987 is just about finished; could the minister tell us when he plans to live up to that commitment?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Premièrement, je tiens à remercier l’honorable député de Nipissing de sa question.

M. Villeneuve: Bientôt?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Non, non. Voyons!

On this question, I think it was a promise made in 1985, as the member says, but we have decided to go with other kinds of tax credits.

By the way, we decided to put some money into roads, and we decided to look into the heritage fund that we are going to put $30 million into. This is the way we went. I think this promise was not repeated in 1986 or 1987. Was it 1985? Last year, we decided to use that money instead for the roads.

Mr. Harris: It is pretty clear. If the government only makes the promise once or twice, then it does not count. It is only if they keep repeating the promise that they have to live up to it. It is obvious that one is down the tubes. Not only has the government not lived up to it, it does not plan to.

Perhaps the minister could respond to the commitment to equalize gasoline prices that was made across northern Ontario in 1985 as well. Since that time, we have had a study that says yes, on average, they are four cents a litre higher and no result -- well, it was a government study that said that. Can the minister tell us when he plans to live up to the commitment to equalize gasoline prices in northern Ontario?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Premièrement, je n’ai aucune remontrance à prendre du député de Nipissing sur les promesses du gouvernement.

I have lived in northern Ontario for at least 53 years. The member’s government made promises all its life and it did nothing for northern Ontario. It could not even move two little jobs from the Whitney Block, the safety of the mines --

An hon. member: Elevators.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: -- the elevators, and the safety on the cables was still being done there. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) tried twice through orders in council to move those little jobs to the north. They could not. So I do not have to take anything from them.

Deuxièmement, je vais lui répondre sur la question du gaz -- et l’autre gars là-bas qui parle pour rien dire, ferme-la donc. Attends une minute, là.

Mr. Jackson: How much was the forest management agreement?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Never mind that. Just do not talk about that.

Deuxièmement, sur l’affaire de la gazoline, la différence n’est plus que $0.04 du litre. Avec les études qui ont été faites durant l’année, ça diminue. Dans l’été passé, c’était égal à celui à Ottawa et à Toronto.

M. Villeneuve: Vous êtes d’accord avec ça?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Oui.

M. Villeneuve: D’accord?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: De temps en temps, dans mon propre comté, la différence peut être de $0.03; ils ont augmenté le prix durant le dernier mois. Mais en moyenne, sur la Route 69, ou à North Bay, à Sudbury, à Thunder Bay, c’est le même prix qu’à Ottawa et à Toronto, presque.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired -- thank goodness.

If any members want to have private conversations, I hope they will keep it quiet so the member for St. Catharines-Brock may present his petition.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Dietsch: I wish to table a petition which reads:

“To His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practice their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

This petition is signed by 80 people.

CANADIAN GYPSUM CO.

Mr. B. Rae: I wish to table in the House a petition from my constituency from the area surrounding the Canadian Gypsum Co. plant in my riding.

“To His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the Canadian Gypsum Co. of 21 Oak Street in the city of York has been the recipient of complaints from residents in Weston, Etobicoke, and North York regarding emissions from its plant, and whereas the emissions increased after the installation of another stack in October 1986. These emissions, night, day and most weekends are an environmental and health concern to residents in the area.

“Whereas government actions in the Ministry of the Environment 424-3000 complaint line have been ineffective in dealing with this matter;

“We, the undersigned, do hereby demand that the Canadian Gypsum Co. at 21 Oak Street in the city of York immediately comply with the Environmental Protection Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario 1980;

“And that the Ontario government, through the Ministry of the Environment, immediately investigate all emissions from the Canadian Gypsum Co. and take necessary steps in enforcing the air quality standards set out under the Environmental Protection Act;

“And that the Ministry of the Environment take inventory of all chemicals and other substances used, manufactured, or the result of a byproduct in the plant, and further ensure that the residents have immediate access to this information.”

It is signed by well over 900 residents in the northern part of my constituency.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Fleet from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Association of Registered Wood Energy Technicians of Ontario;

Bill Pr23, An Act to revive Sudbury Cardio-Thoracic Foundation;

Bill Pr26, An Act to revive 353583 Ontario Limited;

Bill Pr54, An Act to revive the Toronto Ski Club;

Bill Pr70, An Act to revive Community Youth Programs Incorporated.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved first reading of Bill 76, An Act to amend the Education Act and Certain Other Acts related to Education.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 77, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The purpose of this bill is to implement a new voters’ identification system in time for the November 1988 local government elections. This new system will increase the accuracy and completeness of voters’ lists and will ensure that minority English- and French-language electors are properly identified.

1520

FARM IMPLEMENTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 78, An Act respecting the Sale of Farm Implements.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I made my comments earlier on this bill, and judging from the response of my opposition critics, I think we could give this bill second and third readings right away.

Mr. Speaker: Are you asking for unanimous consent? No? OK.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved first reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The purpose of this bill is to increase indemnities and allowances under this act by 4.4 per cent.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved first reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The purpose of this bill is to increase salaries under this act by 4.4 per cent.

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved first reading of Bill 81, An Act to amend the Election Finances Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Very briefly, it is proposed under this amendment act that section 45 of the Election Finances Act, 1986, be repealed. This section relates to the filing of financial information whenever the chief financial officer of a political party resigns.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wong, first reading of Bill 82, An Act respecting Energy Efficiency.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The purpose of this act is to enable the government to introduce regulations to ensure that specified products sold in Ontario are tested for their ability to use energy efficiently, using acceptable and recognized procedures. Furthermore, the act will allow the government to introduce, as necessary, minimum energy efficiency standards for defined products such as refrigerators, freezers, clothes dryers and home heating equipment.

POLLS

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before orders of the day, I have laid on the table a voluminous collection representing two public opinion polls, one done for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology concerning the free trade question and a second done for the former Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to government motion 8 on the proposed trade agreement between Canada and the United States.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Sarnia have any further comments?

Mr. Brandt: As I was saying in my introductory remarks of yesterday in regard to the free trade question, I believe even more so today that it is absolutely imperative that the government of Ontario re-evaluate its position as it relates to this particular question not only in the interest of Ontario but in the interest as well of a strong and united Canada.

I used the phrase in a question to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) earlier today in question period about the importance of nation-building. It is interesting that when the Honourable John Turner was speaking out in the Atlantic provinces and made some comment to the effect that he was in opposition to a trade agreement and that he in fact was supporting the status quo, as it were, the response from a great number of those residents of the eastern part of this particular country was a very simple and a very direct one: “Do you recognize the fact that we are experiencing a 15 to 20 per cent unemployment rate in our provinces?” They do not happen to have an economy that is as strong and as buoyant as we enjoy here in Ontario.

They want to have the opportunities to expand their trade. They want to have an opportunity to enhance the amount of product they can sell to the United States market. They recognize full well that cannot be accomplished in the present environment and with the rules as they stand relating to trading relationships between our countries. The only way that can be accomplished is with a more formalized agreement that sets in place certain principles which indicate how that trade is going to be carried out in the interests of both countries.

The Atlantic provinces recognize that; the western provinces recognize that. Quebec recognizes that is essential. Fully seven out of the 10 provinces now -- with Premier McKenna coming on stream -- have indicated their support for this deal. Of the only provinces that are not on side, one province is philosophically opposed because of its leadership and its leaning towards a more socialistic kind of administration, that being the province under Premier Pawley: Manitoba. I can understand that one. I do not agree with them.

I certainly do not support what Mr. Pawley is saying, even though a couple of years ago, I might add, Mr. Pawley was a free-trader and indicated that he would favour some kind of trade deal with the United States. Now Mr. Pawley has changed his tune, obviously as a result of some influence that may have been brought to bear by members of his party on the position he took a couple of years ago.

The other province is Prince Edward Island.

We have the largest of all provinces, the one that has benefited the most of any province in this entire country as a result of having a formalized trade agreement with our American trading partners. Ontario should stand back and consider the kinds of benefits we have realized or gained -- namely, billions of dollars of investment in our province and thousands upon thousands of jobs -- which are directly attributable to the Canada-US auto pact.

Those members who have taken a close look at the auto pact and related that to the trade agreement we are debating and discussing in this House today may say there is a difference, the difference being that under the auto pact we have managed trade. We have a very specific series of percentages built into the equations as they relate to the auto pact and that makes the difference between a free trade pact and the auto pact. I guess there is some justification for that argument, to a point.

1530

However, there is another argument that I believe can be put forward which is equally as valid, and it is that when you see the major trading countries in the world, all the major industrial nations forming into trading blocs, there appears to be more than just passing interest on the part of those who want to improve their economies by entering into a formalized agreement, with some reasonable checks and balances built into the agreement which will allow for enhanced or improved trade between two sovereign nations, each nation retaining its cultural identity, its sovereignty and its social programs.

All of those things are not on the table and will be retained. In fact, all of those things according to certain studies -- one being the C. D. Howe Institute study -- indicate that we will strengthen our sovereignty and strengthen our ability to deliver social programs as a direct result of having the financial strength, the financial wherewithal to afford and pay for those social programs.

That is the reason we have a European Community and that is the reason Canada and the United States are looking to form an agreement, not dissimilar to but certainly more expansive and more elaborate than the agreement that was entered into between Ireland and Great Britain some 20 years ago and the agreements between New Zealand and Australia. These are all similar agreements based on geographic proximity of one country to another where there is a certain degree of interdependence.

If one were to argue that we do not have a degree of interdependence between Canada and the United States, then one would be absolutely uninformed or misinformed about the trade figures. I appreciate the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) being in the House this afternoon, because I can recall one of the initiatives when I sat in that ministry and attempted to do the job he is doing and carry out the responsibilities that called for.

I can recall saying to my ministry officials, “We should take the initiative to try to reduce our dependence on American trade.” I too have some fears about 90 per cent of all Ontario sales going to one customer. I do not think that is healthy. I would prefer that was not the case. But the reality is we share a continent. We happen to share a similar culture in many respects. We share a language to a great extent, with the exception of our friends in Quebec who have the other official language of our country.

We share a great number of things with the United States, one of which is that we have had a pretty good trading relationship up until now, not without its aggravations and not without is problems, but it has been a relatively sound trading relationship built on the understanding of both countries that we are mature nations and that we trade in a fair and equitable fashion to the extent we can.

This trading arrangement we are proposing under a free trade pact would improve that trade. That is the reason other countries have entered into a trade pact as well. I say to the members of the Liberal Party who have indicated they are adamantly opposed to this deal that it is interesting to note that nowhere in the world to date has a country which has entered into a trade pact with another country withdrawn.

The experience of the European common market is a very interesting one that I bring to their attention. Very simply, what has happened with the European common market is that it formed through a series of countries that initially joined in a trading arrangement, which ultimately resulted in the addition of Great Britain, Spain and Portugal, and more recently, the request on the part of Greece that it too wishes to join the European common market.

Are they all nation states that have no interest in their sovereignty or their culture or the preservation of their unique identity, because each and every one of them has a unique identity in a much smaller land mass, in closer proximity to all of these other influences around them? Some of the nations are much larger, some of them obviously much smaller, but they have banded together in an inward-looking self-interest which allows them to improve on the economies of the respective partner states that are involved in that particular assembly, and it makes sense for them.

But by reflection, and this is the point I want to make with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, what I found that was very frustrating to me as a minister, and I am sure that in those moments of contemplation when he is sitting alone in his office thinking about the problems of the world, I am sure that he too sits back and says to himself: “How do we penetrate those markets? How do we find a way to get Canadian, or more particularly Ontarian, goods and services in to those foreign markets?”

What you find, increasingly, are high tariff walls, nontariff barriers or protectionism of one form or another, which undercuts any opportunity that we might have, irrespective of the quality of our product or the price of our product. We simply cannot penetrate those markets.

Let me tell the minister about my experience, being one who was committed to a multilateral trade arrangement rather than a bilateral trade deal to the exclusion of any multilateral activities. This is what happened. I was able to take an 88 per cent dependency on the American market and drive it all the way down to 90 per cent over the course of time that I was there, and yes, the members heard me correctly. In fact, with all of the efforts, with all of the enthusiasm that I could bring to the job, all I could do was find that we had even more dependency upon our American trading partners.

The minister might say, “Brands failed at that particular exercise.” I would say to the current minister, if that would be his response to the efforts that I made as it relates to trying to improve those figures, let me simply suggest that figure of 90 per cent remains today, as the minister well knows. I do not fault the minister for that. I place no blame on him whatever, because I know the difficulties, and I have to tell him that we are the only industrial nation in the world that does not trade within a population trading block of a minimum of 100,000 people, with the singular exception of Australia.

An hon. member: One hundred thousand?

Mr. Brandt: I am sorry, 100 million people.

Our 25-million domestic market is simply insufficient to give us the kind of base that we require to be able to sell competitively in certain goods and products that we may wish to be able to market in other parts of the world. That happens to be the reality of the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

What truly bothers me, however, about the position that we find ourselves in and the debate that we are involved in today, is the fact that Ontario is on the outside looking in, as it relates to this trading proposal that is being made by the federal government. Here we have a Liberal Premier in Quebec saying the following, as it relates to trade and the matter that I am discussing with members at the present time. I am quoting directly from the speech that Premier Bourassa made, although he delivered the speech in French. I will take the liberty of using the translated version as accurately as I can in the other official language. Premier Bourassa said at that time:

“A while ago, the Prime Minister of Canada mentioned that Canada is one of the countries most dependent on international trade; some 30 per cent of our activity. This is a relatively high percentage among the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Some 20 countries within the OECD are already members of either a common market or a free trade zone. Turkey is another OECD country wishing to enter the common market. Two of them have signed an agreement, Canada and the United States. Therefore, of the 24 countries belonging to the OECD, 24 countries which trade mainly with us, which are comparable to us, only one is not interested in belonging to a free trade zone or a common market and that is Japan, for very understandable geographic and economic reasons.

“Why then would Canada choose isolation? Why would it choose isolation, contrary to most, to almost all of its trading partners, when it still has a very high rate of unemployment, a relatively limited market of only 25 million people and especially when it is at the gateway of the most important or one of the most important economic markets in the world?”

1540

The points that Premier Bourassa made I endorse entirely: the size of our market and the fact that the world is becoming increasingly competitive. The world in fact is changing very rapidly around us, and there are some who sit back very comfortably and would suggest there is such a thing as the status quo that we can fall back on.

Oh yes, I know and I have heard from some Liberal members: “We’re not against a trade deal. We’re not against freer trade. We’re not against a multilateral trading arrangement with other countries. What we’re against is this deal. This is a bad deal.” That is what they have been saying. “This deal does not incorporate everything we want.”

How naïve can you get? Those members who have been in business, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, his very fine and capable assistant and other members who have been in the world of free enterprise some number of years before they came into this House know full well there are few deals that are ever put together where you get everything you want. There are tradeoffs, and yes, deals are flawed. Yes, deals perhaps have some weaknesses.

I admitted during the course of my question to the Premier today that, sure, I would have liked to have had a better deal in some fashion than the one that was negotiated. But this deal is sufficiently strong and contains a sufficient number of positive elements that I encourage him to review the deal again, as have Premier McKenna and British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec, Premier Bourassa, and all of the east coast provinces with the singular exception now of Prince Edward Island.

When he reviews that objectively and with an open mind, I have every confidence that many members will come to the same conclusion I have come to, that conclusion being very simply that we gain far more from this deal than we lose and that this deal will benefit Ontario and will benefit Canada very substantially.

I have heard it said: “There is a flawed dispute settlement mechanism. It is not as perfect as we would like. What we would like is unfettered, guaranteed access to the American market.” We have heard that before from certain spokesmen, one of whom is the Premier of this province. I am paraphrasing him, to be fair, in indicating the kinds of responses he has been giving to me on some of the questions I have raised.

At the selfsame time, the Premier will say, “But we want to be able to retain our ability to overcome regional disparities. We want to be able to provide subsidies for eastern Ontario,” such as the ones contained in the minister’s most recent book, where he takes certain slow-growth parts of the province, such as eastern Ontario and northern Ontario, and he says to the citizens of those areas: “We’re going to provide some special assistance for you. We’re going to do something over and above what we’re going to do for the more affluent areas of the province.”

I agree, and under this deal he can still do it. He still may provide certain subsidies or incentive programs for areas that have a higher rate of unemployment or for areas that have a slower level of economic growth.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Maybe.

Mr. Brandt: It is not maybe, it is factual. The minister says, “Maybe.” All those subsidies and those incentives are subject to is review to make sure that they are not in fact unfairly subsidizing a product in a way that will be injurious to a similar product on the American side of the border. In other words, let us put it in very clear terms: If Canada wants to cheat, you will be trapped under the dispute settlement mechanism. If, however, Canada wants to play the game fairly, and I am sure we do and I am sure the minister would be very sensitive in the way he applied certain grants or subsidies, then the dispute settlement mechanism, as I read it and as I understand it, will not stop you from attempting to assist certain slow-growth parts of the province, and that holds true for the entire country. It holds true as well for federal assistance programs.

So I can understand Premier McKenna saying today, when he gave his stamp of approval, his imprimatur, as it were, to this particular deal, that he had three caveats he wanted to put forward to make absolutely certain that his province was covered off and that it was a secure arrangement as far as he was personally concerned. So he said: “We want the retention of those regional grants to overcome regional disparities. We want to be sure we are not included in the omnibus bill.” The Premier says we will be, but let us find out, because I have concerns about the omnibus trade bill as well, as do Conservative members and other members of the House at the federal level. The third one was the problem of any employment disruption that might occur, that there be some assistance available if there are industries that are harmed in some way, even to some limited degree, by our entering into a trading arrangement.

That is what Premier McKenna said, because he wants to move ahead and look forward, not look backward. He wants to move beyond the position we are in today, because spokesman after spokesman has said very clearly that we do not have the option of the status quo. We cannot simply sit here and take the attitude that because we have a very substantial surplus in trade with the United States at the moment, it is going to go on ad infinitum, because it is not.

We are going to get blind-sided on the auto pact or we are going to get blind-sided by increases in tariffs. We are going to get blind-sided by a series of protectionist measures that can be brought forward by the United States if, in fact, we do not take some steps, through this agreement or through some other mechanism, to make sure that we will continue to have the kind of access to the American market which is so absolutely crucial to Ontario’s economic wellbeing and to Canada’s future.

Let us put it into very specific terms. Forty per cent of the jobs that we have in this province, or close to that figure -- I would not argue one or two per cent with the minister -- close to 40 per cent of the jobs we have in this province are virtually directly dependent upon our continuing the present level of trade that we are experiencing. If there is a slowdown in trade, if certain of our products are considered to be inappropriate for shipment into that market to the south of us, then that directly reflects upon the employment opportunities in this province. There just simply is no other decision one can come to as it relates to that fact. It is a reality that we all have to accept.

Let me talk about the third option for a moment, if I might, the third option being a multilateral trade agreement with other countries. I made brief reference to the fact that because the world is forming into trading blocs, it makes it increasingly difficult, as our agricultural community knows when it tries to sell agricultural products into the European common market, as our lumber industry knows when we try to sell lumber or pulp and paper into that market --

Mr. Dietsch: Tell us where our wines are at under this deal.

Mr. Brandt: We can get to wines. Could the member tell us where the wines might be, when he has an opportunity to speak, as it relates to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade decision? Now, perhaps he would like to reflect on the decision, which is made totally separate and apart from a free trade arrangement, which would also directly impact on the wine industry.

1550

I stand before the House as one who at a very early stage called for assistance to the wine industry, and to the grape-growing industry in Niagara particularly, because I knew there would be some disruptions in that market, as there will be in the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia. They recognize as well that there are some downsides to the deal.

There is no question that the wine industry was going to have some problems under the GATT decision.

Interjection.

Mr. Brandt: I did not say that we do away with that industry. The member said, “Do away with the industry.”

Mr. Dietsch: No, I said you will give it away.

Mr. Brandt: I am saying that industry should be given some assistance and that industry should in fact have the opportunity to continue to grow and prosper, both under a free trade deal or in response to the GATT decision.

Let me get on with the third option, which I think is important here for a moment.

Again quoting Premier Bourassa from his speech at the first minister’s conference: “Another argument put forward by the opponents of the free trade deal is that we should be able to consider a third option. We should try to develop trade with other partners, with other continents. ”

But this is exactly what Canada has tried to do for the last 30 years under the Diefenbaker and Trudeau governments. I believe that trend even started under Mr. St. Laurent’s administration. For the past 30 years, we have tried to develop this third option, with what results?

We still send approximately three quarters of all our exports to the United States in spite of all the efforts which have been made by various governments to try to utilize this third option. The reality is, we have simply failed in our attempts to disperse our dependency away from the United States and to disperse our products to other parts of the world.

That is why I applaud the efforts of the minister who has taken over a policy which was originally introduced by a former government, the name of which we shall not go into at the moment. A former government introduced a policy of trying to open up trade with China. I agree with that, because trade with China and that billion population that China contains is a tremendous opportunity if we can penetrate those markets. But it still represents a very small fraction of the total amount of trade that we are doing with the United States, as the government well knows.

Let us talk about investments for a moment. Again, I refer back to the comments of Premier Bourassa, because he has the province that is probably most comparable in its makeup, in its size, in its population and in its industrial diversification to the province of Ontario.

Premier Bourassa went on to say at the first ministers’ conference that one of the reasons he supports the free trade agreement is the issue of investments. He said:

“The Prime Minister of Canada referred to a statement that I constantly make; namely, that it is better for us in Quebec, but also I believe in other provinces, to import capital rather than to export workers. The very nature of Canada, one of the largest natural resource countries in the world, the very nature of Canada explains and demands that we welcome investments; Canada, with a market of 25 million people, an immense territory and a level of youth unemployment which is still very high in all provinces and which could, for lack of investments, force our youth to leave the country, an exile which could be very costly to our future. We can subject these investments to all the controls, to all the necessary regulations, in order to eliminate the impact they could have on our cultural sovereignty or policies.”

Again, what he is saying is that as it relates to the investment environment, we should be encouraging foreign investment and foreign capital into Canada, and again I agree. That opportunity will be enhanced, that opportunity will be expanded very dramatically as a result of a trading arrangement that we would enter into with the United States of America.

I ask the government members, after having shared with them some of the comments of the Premier of Quebec, is the Premier of Quebec unpatriotic? Is the Premier of Quebec insensitive to the size of the American market and the potential for being overwhelmed by 250 million people in that country? Is the Premier of Quebec not concerned about the loss of control that his province would have as it relates to future programs, social and economic?

I say in response to all those questions that the answer is that certainly the Premier of Quebec is concerned and sensitive. I think he is being realistic about all those various considerations, but he has come to the conclusion that he will not lose his sovereignty, that the culture of Quebec will not be impeded or reduced in any way and that the economy of Quebec can still be controlled by Quebec.

Simply because we enter into an economic agreement does not mean you are less patriotic as a Canadian or that you are less concerned about this country. I took issue with -- I am sorry he is not here today to hear me say this, but I think one of the less kind and probably uncalled for remarks that have been made in this House in this session was when the Premier of this province indicated I was acting as a spokesman for American interests or for the American government.

That is absolute nonsense. I was born in this province. I have lived in this province all my life. Because I happen to disagree with some of my honourable friends opposite as to the way in which this deal shall be entered into between our two countries makes me no less a Canadian than the Premier of this province, let me tell the members. I think it is uncalled for when we start to reduce this debate to that level of emotional argument and to that kind of name-calling. I believe it is the first time in my 49 years on this troubled earth of ours that anyone has ever suggested I speak for those other than the people who voted for me and supported me. I believe all members can say the same thing. I do not stand here as an apologist or spokesman on behalf of any foreign government or I would leave my seat and my place this very instant. I speak on behalf of the interests I feel can be best served in Ontario as a result of entering into a trade agreement.

I do not agree with those merchants of doom and gloom who suggest we are going to lose this control of our sovereignty, our culture and a whole host of other things as a result of entering into a trade agreement. I say that very simply because if one looks at the experience elsewhere in the world -- I know my friend opposite has some experience with West Germany. I was in West Germany just a couple of years ago. The culture, the language, the traditions and the heritage have not been subjected as a result of its proximity in its trading relationship with the government of France. They have not been reduced or injured in any fashion whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is that all those European common market countries have probably enhanced their standard of living, their quality of life and their sense of self-identity as a result of an economic pact which now is going to include well in excess of 300 million people when you bring all the nations in together. It is an economic pact that has worked to the mutual benefit of all the member countries.

Recall my earlier comments: Nobody over there has asked to come out of the deal. Nobody has said: “Let’s take a look back and reflect on this terrible, dastardly deed we did when we entered into an agreement with these other countries. It has worked to our detriment and, therefore, we have to find a way to extricate ourselves from it. We have to find a way to remove ourselves from the influence of the European common market.” In fact, the opposite has happened.

Mr. Daigeler: They didn’t rush into those deals.

Mr. Brandt: They took a long time to negotiate. That is absolutely correct. The deals have been strengthened and improved, as have the trading relationships between those countries. It is interesting to note also, and I repeat myself, for which I ask the forgiveness of this House, that when I said earlier there has been a net addition of countries to that trading arrangement, that happens to be the reality.

Mr. Villeneuve: Hear, hear, and still growing.

1600

Mr. Brandt: My friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry indicates to me that it is still growing. That happens to be the reality.

I remember the extensive debate that went on in Great Britain over whether Great Britain should join the European common market. Great Britain joined the European common market, as the members know, after a great deal of debate within that country. Guess what happened to one of our third options, namely, the trade we experienced at that time with Great Britain? It went down dramatically because of the shift in terms of its trading relationships on the part of our mother country, Great Britain. Its focus, if you will, changed from Canada, from the Dominion and Commonwealth countries to a much closer linkage and a much closer relationship with continental Europe.

That was the decision England made and it has worked to the benefit of Great Britain. That has ultimately resulted, as we have already discussed, in a number of other countries wanting to join as well and become part of this very large trading bloc that has been so successful over the last many years.

I stand before the members to say again that the deal is good for Canada and good for Ontario. I say as well that I will encourage and support any initiatives on the part of the government in relation to multilateral activities because I believe in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We still will be a member of the GATT tribunals and the GATT organization. I believe GATT can serve a very important role in the expansion of our trade and in the reduction of tariffs over the years ahead, but GATT alone will not improve our trade as dramatically as will a trade agreement with the United States.

Let us take a look for a moment at what happened when a trading arrangement was turned around and the reverse happened from what I am suggesting should happen in relation to a trade agreement with the United States. Back in 1929 and the early 1930s, when we had the Great Depression, it is interesting to note what the countries did at that time in response to the collapse of the stock market and in response to what many of the countries of the world thought was -- and it was -- a tremendously devastating economic period for them.

There were a few moves they made that I want to share with the members. One of the things they did was to raise interest rates. One of the other things they did was to reduce government spending. One of the other things they did was to elevate tariff walls. In other words, they built up the level of protectionism to such a height that international trade virtually came to a standstill.

When the United States did that, when it took those three steps and increased interest rates, reduced government spending and lifted those tariff walls, international trade slowed to a crawl and the countries of the world slowly, one by one, were thrown into the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Thankfully, we have learned a little bit from that. We experienced Black Monday a few weeks ago when there was a comparable collapse of the stock market, one that was very devastating and obviously very painful for those members who are wealthy enough to be in the market. Personally I do not happen to be in that position, so I watched with only passing interest as some of these things occurred. I felt the pain and agony that some did who had major investments. We all know that was a very devastating day, and the period to follow thereafter was very devastating as well, but the governments did not panic. Thankfully, the governments responded in such a way as to allow the economies to continue to move along in a relatively sound and predictable fashion.

We did not get an immediate reduction in government spending. We did not get an increase in interest rates. In fact, interest rates, in a very appropriate and well-planned way, were depressed to a certain extent, which was the opposite of what happened during the 1930s. The third thing they did not do is they did not move those tariff walls up. They did not increase the impediments to doing business with other countries. When the United States did that back in 1930, 20 or 25 other countries quickly followed suit. You know what happens when you enter into a type of reciprocity with your neighbour. If he does you harm, you do him harm. If he does you a favour, you are more inclined to do him a favour as well.

Reciprocity in the 1930s meant that because the United States raised its tariff walls, then other countries followed suit and raised tariff walls and, of course, the ultimate destruction and collapse of world economies followed immediately thereafter.

So I would ask the members to listen to this argument very carefully. If raising tariff walls is harmful and if it does damage to nations, then should not the reverse help nations and improve trade? Should not a reduction, a removal, an elimination of tariffs phased sensitively over a period of time, such as in this agreement, over a one- and a five- and a 10-year period, should not all of those things improve on the economic wellbeing of the member countries that are part and parcel of that particular trade pact? I would have to say yes.

Because one of the things that happens when you attempt to hurt another country, when you attempt to do some damage to another sovereign nation that is perhaps acting inappropriately in terms of human rights considerations or other factors, is that you stop doing trade with them. That is what you do.

If you really want to do them damage you stop doing trade with them. You tell them, “We don’t appreciate the way in which you are conducting yourselves as it relates either to apartheid policy or human rights conditions in your country, so we’re not going to trade with you.”

If that hurts a country, if that brings the economy of a country to its knees, then does it not follow that if you do the opposite you help that country? If you bring those tariff walls down, if you remove those barriers and those protectionist levers that every country has got at its disposal, if you can remove or eliminate those to the extent possible, you will in fact end up with a better situation for all of the participants. Does that not logically follow? I would suggest to you that it does.

We are entering a new era of trade, as I indicated. That new era of trade is going to require us in Ontario and in Canada to move very, very quickly to take advantage of the opportunities, but also to be very careful of the problems that will develop if, in fact, we find ourselves isolated as a tiny nation of 25 million people, attempting to do business in a world trading community where other nations are forming into these large trading blocs.

That is one of the arguments that I want to put before you this afternoon which I think is a valid one, and an argument which I would like you to take into consideration. That is part of the reason why we have a growing list of groups and organizations which I want to read into the record, all of which have indicated that they are in favour of this particular deal.

I mentioned a couple of these in the House the other day, but the list is far more expansive and far more lengthy than I shared with the members opposite in the days past.

We have, first, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Equipment Distributors, the Canadian Agricultural Policy Alliance, the Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association, the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Export Association, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, the Canadian Petroleum Association, the Canadian Steel Service Centre Institute, the Financial Executives Institute of Canada, the Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Institute of Canada, the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, the International Business Council of Canada, the Mining Association of Canada, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, the Retail Council of Canada, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, the Trust Companies Association of Canada, to mention but a few.

1610

One I have not mentioned yet, but would like to centre in on for just a few brief moments, is the Consumers’ Association of Canada. It is interesting to note that the Consumers’ Association of Canada has made the very correct observation that as a result of our being part of a larger trading market we will be able to achieve certain economies of scale which will reduce prices to consumers, perhaps not to the extent some have suggested -- I have heard figures of $1,000 or $1,200 a year, something of that order -- but I do believe a saving in the amount of a few hundred dollars a year will be realized by many consumers. That will result from prices going down.

Even the Treasurer’s (Mr. R. F. Nixon’s) own report, as my colleagues well know -- we looked at that report and were somewhat amazed at the tremendous courage the author had in placing that report before the Treasurer when it said two very essential, important and interesting things would result from a trading arrangement. I think this is pretty devastating in terms of the argument the members opposite are trying to put forward that this is a bad deal. That report said two things that I feel they should keep in mind when they are making a decision as to how this province should go in relation to a trading arrangement.

It said wages would go up and prices would go down.

Mr. Daigeler: Marginally.

Mr. Brandt: My friend opposite says, “Marginally.” If the report said prices would go up and wages would go down marginally, I would join hands with him in opposition to this deal, but that is not what it said. What it said was prices would go down and wages would go up. That is the way in which you improve the quality of life and the standard of living of the citizens whom each and every one of us in this room was elected to represent.

What we said to them in one way or another leading up to the decision they made on September 10 was, “Vote for me and I will make life better for you.” We said that to people from all walks of life. “If you vote for me, we will try to secure your job. We will try to make sure you get a place to work. We will give your kids a better school to go to, a better educational system, a better health system. That is going to happen if you vote for me.”

The only way they can do it, the only way they are capable of delivering on those campaign promises, is if ultimately they can get somewhat more cheaply things for their citizens and the people they represent, and if they can find a way to help them share in a better quality of life by having their wages go up. The Treasurer’s report was damning evidence that I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology felt somewhat uncomfortable about when we read that phrase back to him, because it said those two things that I think are so vitally important in relation to this deal.

Mr. Black: Is everything dollars and cents?

Mr. Brandt: No, everything is not dollars and cents. When he talks in terms of dollars and cents, because this is an economic deal, then he is dissatisfied with that. What he wants to talk about are culture and sovereignty. I am prepared to talk about those issues as well, because a far more elaborate and exhaustive study on that question than I have undertaken was undertaken by the C. D. Howe Institute. It said that we will improve and strengthen our ability to retain our heritage, our culture and our institutions. It came to that conclusion quite surprisingly, because it did not expect that was going to be the response it would get when it initially undertook the study.

Let me give the members another study if that one does not satisfy them in terms of its importance. What about the Macdonald commission? There were three years of study and $20 million expended on doing an exhaustive analysis of the impact of this deal on Canada and Ontario. The Liberal chairman of that commission, the Honourable Donald Macdonald, said at the time he concluded his study that, on balance, this deal would benefit our country and our province very substantially.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: He talked about the economic concept of free trade.

Mr. Brandt: The minister knows full well that he had the general outline of the deal at the time he undertook a comprehensive study of what the impact of a free trade deal would be between Canada and the United States. I say to the honourable minister, if he puts forward the argument that Mr. Macdonald did not see the deal when he concluded his study, he is right on that point. But it is interesting to note that as of yesterday or today, Mr. Macdonald continues to be in support of the deal as he has now seen it, and he sits in wonderment at the position being taken the Premier as it relates to free trade.

He does not know how the Liberals can come to this conclusion, other than they got themselves in a box, they got themselves cornered on a position and they do not know how to get out of it now. That is the problem they have, because they know full well that virtually every single economic study that has been taken proves that we will benefit from the arrangement.

Mr. Black: Dollars and cents are all you want to talk about.

Mr. Brandt: I am not going to apologize because the dollars and cents are better. We talk about dollars and cents in this House each and every day because dollars and cents are the wherewithal that we use to improve the educational system and the road system and the health system and social services. You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it across the province. So if we can do something as a result of this deal to improve on the economic health of Ontario’s citizens, I make no apology for the fact that this deal delivers on that particular ground. That is what this deal does.

Mr. Villeneuve: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) should talk to his predecessor.

Mr. Black: Oh, he is not in favour of it. He’s gone on record as opposing it. He’s got a lot more sense than a lot of you.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I am going to conclude my remarks in a moment but I want to perhaps try to share with the honourable members my understanding of this deal as it relates to some specific areas that have been brought to my attention as areas of concern, either in informal conversations with members opposite or in reports that have been brought to my attention about concerns that Ontario citizens have as they try to relate to their understanding of what the implications of this deal really mean.

Let us talk about some of the myths, as I would like to call them, because there are some myths in this debate. The myths really relate to what some people think is in the deal and is not really in the deal. Very little of this has to do with dollars and cents so I will shift ground and move to some of the more euphoric areas that members might be interested in, two of those areas being pornography and firearms.

We know there is a more liberal attitude towards firearms and pornography in the United States. Some have suggested that when we enter into a trade arrangement, we will simply open our borders to the way of life that is being experienced south of the border and there will be more access to pornographic material and also to firearms in Canada.

That is simply not true. I would point out for the members opposite that under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade arrangement that we are part of at the present time, article 407, chapters 5 and 12 -- for the reference of the minister -- those particular areas are untouched and remain totally intact in our sovereignty. Our right to deny the importation of those particular products will continue as before. Read into that, if the minister will, no change. So if he is going to try to raise that as a red herring, if someone is going to try to muster that up as an argument for why this is such a bad arrangement, let us put that one to rest.

The next one is, “We happen to have two official languages in this country and we made a decision, a very conscientious decision some years ago to move towards bilingual labelling in this country and, when we enter into an economic trade agreement with the US, we are going to have to get rid of all of our bilingual labelling.” Also untrue. That will not be necessary. Again, it is a red herring raised by some who would want to scupper the deal based on arguments that are ill-founded and nonexistent.

1620

Another argument is that we would not be able to raise sales taxes on certain products and that we would restrict, and in some way encumber, our opportunity to approach the question of taxation in as pragmatic and as flexible a way as possible, or in a way in which this Legislature might deem to be appropriate as it relates to our future decisions. The reality is that there will be no change in how we assess our taxes, sales taxes or otherwise, as long as we assess those taxes equitably across the board on all products.

Obviously, we cannot indirectly subsidize a product -- as we did with gold coins, by the way -- a problem that I tried to deal with as well as I know, one that was either on the minister’s desk or the desk of his predecessor. But what we did was we played unfairly, folks, at that particular time.

What we did was we said, in order to encourage the purchase of Canadian gold coins and recognizing that we had gold mining interests in this province that we wanted to encourage, we will not charge a sales tax on our product, but we will charge a sales tax on the other guy’s product. That is an unfair deal in terms of this trade arrangement. The minister is absolutely correct. That one would be deemed inappropriate.

So let us understand that when the government is assessing a tax, it has to be equitable, balanced, across the board and an assessment of a taxation which would be the same for our products as for some other imported product.

Another argument that I am hearing less of today, but that still comes up occasionally, is that the agricultural industry is going to be left totally unprotected, that we are going to have to do away with our marketing boards. Not only is that argument incorrect -- that marketing boards will be done away with -- but in fact under this deal we will be able to introduce new marketing boards in the future. We will be able to expand the marketing board concept for other products at some future point.

Mr. Villeneuve: Surely he cannot be against that.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Isn’t that nice?

Mr. Brandt: Rather sarcastically, the member says, “Isn’t that nice” that they will let us do that.

The fact of the matter is, it is a form of protectionism, my friend, and the member sat on the committee that studied the economic relationship between our two countries and he knows full well that if we want to get an advantage over the other guy, we had better be prepared for some retaliation. Either that, or we deal on a level playing field and we deal fairly and we deal in a balanced way with our trading partner.

They have said to us, “We will retain our present policy of direct subsidization to the agricultural community because that is the way we do it over here in the US.” We have said, “Fine, continue to do it that way, but here in Canada, and more particularly in Ontario, we have grown up and appreciated and would like to continue to have the opportunity to operate marketing boards.” They have said, “OK, you can do that too, and further, if you want to expand them, you can do that too.”

Let us not raise the argument that in fact marketing boards are going to disappear and the farmers will be without protection. That is not to say there are not some problems in the agricultural community that are going to have to be addressed. I think Premier McKenna is absolutely right when he says that where there are job dislocations, where there are problems, then the government has a responsibility, I say to the minister, federally as well as provincially, to attempt to resolve some of those particular difficulties.

I do not know who wrote me this note, but I will look for the author later. I will not read that into the record, because I want to wind up my remarks as quickly as I can, knowing that there are other speakers who are anxious to get on.

In closing, let me simply say to my friends opposite that this is more than just a political issue. It is an issue that really cuts to the heart and soul of the future of this province and it cuts to the heart and soul of what Canada is going to be, not only today but also tomorrow.

Let us appreciate, for the moment, the fact that we do not have too many other options if we miss this opportunity to enter into a trading agreement. We do not have too many other options because most of the doors are closed in most other areas of the world.

If we are going to become part of a larger trading arrangement with our largest trading partner, recognizing that at the moment we two, Canada and the United States, do more business together than any other two countries in the entire world, it only makes good common sense that we enter into a form of common market with our American friends and that we in fact --

Mr. D. R. Cooke: A common market?

Mr. Brandt: Yes, I said a form of common market.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Are you in favour of a common market?

Mr. Brandt: I have certain appreciations for a common market, yes. Is the member opposed to that as well?

The reality is that we enter into a trading arrangement with our American friends to secure access to those markets. That is what it is all about. If, as a direct result of that, we improve on the living standard of Ontario citizens and if, as a result of that, we are able to build a more dynamic and a healthier Ontario, it is worth the effort of us entering into such a deal.

It is for that reason that my party, after a great deal of discussion on this issue, has come to the conclusion that we must represent the voice in this Legislature that asks members to reconsider their position and to join with the majority of provinces in this country now, as of today, numbering seven in all, who have said: “We are going to march hand in hand with the federal government in a trading arrangement with the United States of America. We are going to do that, recognizing that it will benefit very substantially our seven provinces.” They have also said, “We wonder why Ontario is not entering into the deal when Ontario is the province that stands to benefit the most.” That is the frightening part of it.

They have also said, and I want to make this comment before I close off in recognition that other speakers want to get on: “When we take a look at the east coast situation and at the unemployment problem there, we also take a look at the remarks of John Turner when he was travelling in that part of the province and he said, ‘Accept the status quo because we are in opposition to a trade deal,’ or, ‘If the current government signs a trade deal, we are going to rip it up and get rid of it because we do not believe it is in the best interests of Canada.’”

What the people on the east coast are saying is: “How come the auto pact and the 90 per cent of your export sales that are going to the United States are good for Ontario? How come that has allowed you to realize an unemployment rate of around five per cent and the most dynamic and growing economy in all of Canada? When those things have happened to the benefit of Ontario, why do you deny us the right to do the same things?”

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Because the auto pact is not free trade.

Mr. Brandt: It is managed trade. I am quite prepared to concede that the auto pact is not exactly the same as --

Mr. Laughren: The auto pact is not free trade.

Mr. Brandt: But what did the member’s party say and what did the people who share his political philosophy say, including the labour movement, 23 years ago when we entered into an auto pact? They said: “We are selling our soul down the river. We are going to have a bad deal for Ontario.” They did not want that deal either and now they stand up as though they invented the deal. They did not invent the deal. They did not even think about it 23 years ago. It makes me angry to think that they can change their minds so rapidly about how bad something was 23 years ago.

Where would this province be economically if it was not for the auto pact? I will tell the member where Oshawa would be. It would have about $7 billion or $8 billion less investment. We would have hundreds of thousands fewer jobs in this province. We would have a much higher unemployment rate if we did not have the auto pact. It is probably one of the conditions that is most sacrosanct in this entire deal because we want to continue with that level of prosperity. We want to make sure we have protected that deal, that we have made it absolutely certain for the future that this deal remains as secure as is possible.

1630

Mr. D. R. Cooke: For the Big Three.

Mr. Brandt: No, there is more involved than the future of only the Big Three. I am more concerned about the security of employment of the workers who number in the thousands and the spinoff jobs directly related to that industry, some of which are in my own riding of Sarnia, that are dependent on the continued viability of that industry.

I have to say to the members that those people on the east coast and the west coast of this great country of ours want the same opportunity to enhance their north-south trade as well. They know that is the logical way to go.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: The member questions why they would even want to enter into the deal. The interesting part is that they have supported it and the member has not. He can sit back like a fat cat and say, “I’m all right, Jack,” but the rest of the country has also got to be taken into consideration. The interesting part of this is that not only will the rest of the country benefit but Ontario will benefit even more.

As a result of all those considerations I have put forward, I will be moving an amendment.

By way of conclusion, I would simply like to say that we feel the appropriate forum for debate of this matter is in committee and that the government should have taken it upon itself, when it made a decision to pass on the resolution it has moved before this House, to have advised the opposition of its intentions, which it did not do, contrary to our understanding with the House leader.

If I might digress for a moment, there are copies of my amendment there for members of the government as well.

Finally, had it done that, we would have co-operated in discussing this matter fully, deliberately and completely in committee.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Mr. Brandt has moved an amendment to the amendment that the resolution be amended by removing all wording after the word “States” in the first paragraph and substituting the following: “has great significance for the province of Ontario. Therefore, we resolve this agreement be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs for a full and public discussion to determine if this agreement, to the best factual information available to the committee, is in the interests of the people of Ontario.”

It appears to me on reading this amendment to the amendment that it may be out of order and I would like the indulgence of the House to refer this to the Speaker. In the meantime, I suggest that we continue with the debate. Do I have the indulgence of the House to do that?

Agreed to.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I have with me today a copy of the Canada-US “free trade agreement,” which is in a blue colour, I would note. It is another masterpiece of marketing by the use of the word “free,” as if this trade agreement had no costs associated with it.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Properly delivered.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Properly delivered.

I have looked at the agreement and looked at the overview in particular. Indeed, the very first paragraph of the agreement reads as follows: “The Canada-United States trade agreement reproduced in these pages is the biggest trade agreement ever concluded between two countries. It covers more trade and more trade-related issues than any other trade agreement.”

I do not know whether that is true or whether that is hyperbole, but it is of some significance, especially when you consider the fact that this biggest trade agreement ever was made available in its preliminary form to the people of Ontario only on October 4, the final text was not received until December 11, and the submission of the signed agreement to the President of the United States will take place on January 3.

Given the incredibly short period of time we have to consider this biggest trade agreement ever, I suggest it is very important that we pay attention to the resolution before the House. I believe that it is of absolutely vital significance and that, if passed, the resolution will send a clear and distinct message, not only to the Parliament of Canada and the Prime Minister but also to the American Congress, President Reagan and the rest of the world, quite simply, that the province of Ontario opposes this agreement as detrimental to Canada’s sovereignty and economic interests and that we urge the Parliament of Canada to reject the agreement.

Debate and passage of this resolution is required simply because we believe there are those in the United States who are sensitive to the provincial concerns and needs in Canada and will not support a free trade agreement if is not supported by all 10 provinces. I would suggest it is interesting that some Americans believe it is important to have the unanimous consent of all 10 provinces to this biggest trade agreement ever, against the backdrop of the Meech Lake accord which was promulgated by my friend’s representative in Ottawa.

I would also suggest that this resolution could not be debated prior to December 10 because we did not have the text of the trade agreement. We now have the text and it is time for Ontario to state its position.

My friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) wishes Ontario had taken a clearer position against this deal from the outset, some two and a half years ago, when the negotiations began. The problem he faces is that the deal was not written and was not before us until December 10. I would suggest to him that no responsible government can or should take a position on any proposal without having read it.

The problem which both opposition parties face is quite simple. The official opposition from the outset appeared to take the position, “No truck or trade with the Yankees,” which of course is, I suggest, slightly hypocritical. The Canadian Auto Workers are probably the most significant beneficiaries of this province’s truck and trade with the Yankees.

Indeed, the official opposition, I would suggest, has a double agenda. I say to the leader of the official opposition, he cannot have it both ways. Either he believes in trade or he does not believe in trade. Either he is in favour of enhanced trade with the USA and the rest of the world or he is opposed to it. If he is in favour of enhanced trade, then he will have the patience, the self-discipline and the self-respect to at least consider the merits and the demerits of any trade deal.

This government has those virtues, I would suggest: the patience to wait for the final text, the self-discipline to restrain our biases and take an objective, critical look at the details of the proposed agreement, and the self-respect to trust in our ability not to be swayed by emotional rhetoric or flag-waving nationalism.

The third party’s problem is the problem of its slavish commitment to the errors of its federal counterparts, come hell or high water, and the less said about that the better.

1640

The deal before us is a rearrangement of trade relations or, in the words of the federal government, the biggest trade deal ever, which requires critical analysis by all of us, simply because it deals with all the stuff of which Canada is made, not just our dollars and cents but our enterprise, our laws, our culture and all our people. The deal affects all social classes and all regions of the country. Future generations, our children and our grandchildren will have to live with the consequences.

The first thing I suggest that is important to understand about this trade deal is that we are not talking about free trade, notwithstanding the admonition on the cover of the agreement. Free trade is a figment of many a classical economist’s mind, and I see it is taken up by the third party. It is a concept that brings with it the implicit assumption that the marketplace should be the sole arbiter of the success or failure of firms, industry, individuals or regions within the country. In the real world, independent states never accept the loss of sovereignty that is required by so-called free trade nor, I suggest, should this government.

What the federal government has presented to Canadians is quite simply not a free trade deal but rather Brian Mulroney’s version of a trade deal, a bilateral trade pact which, in the opinion of this government, jeopardizes Canadian sovereignty without achieving secure access to the US market. In addition, it dilutes this government’s ability to protect growing, new, incipient industries, new economic interests against the bulwarks, the attacks of international competition, as they are in their nascent stage.

According to the proponents of this agreement, and we have a few over here -- all three of them -- Canada’s major gain is secure access to the US market with a new bilateral panel to review antidumping and countervail disputes. Open and secure access to the US market is what Brian Mulroney promised. A dispute settlement mechanism with binding powers was supposed to ensure secure access by guaranteeing fair and impartial application of US trade law remedies.

As chief negotiator Simon Reisman, my friends’ diplomat, noted, one of Canada’s biggest problems is that the tariff concessions we have paid for in good coin are eroded and undermined by the ability of the United States to unilaterally apply trade remedy laws. Mr. Reisman said Canada would never accept a trade deal under those circumstances, but according to this trade agreement, that is just what we did.

Under this agreement, US trade laws could still be used to harass fairly traded Canadian products. The proposed dispute settlement mechanism would not have prevented the US Department of Commerce’s decision to let a 15 per cent surcharge be levied on Canadian softwood lumber. It would not solve the potash dispute, the pork dispute or any other dispute we face under protectionist pressures from local interests in the United States. It would not secure market access for a single Canadian product and it would not improve job security for one Canadian worker.

The Minister of International Trade, Pat Carney, was correct -- I suggest Mrs. Carney is correct on this occasion in any event -- that if we cannot come up with a way of settling disputes that is binding on both parties, there is no advantage to us in a trade agreement. There is no point in having rules if they are not enforceable or if one side can unilaterally change them.

Here we have a dispute mechanism that does not work. One of the most important benefits that Canada sought to obtain in its negotiations with the United States was guaranteed access to the US market, access at the present time constrained by both US laws and the method of their application. The potential value of improved access to the US market is taken as a given, I hope. Without an effective dispute settlement mechanism to control US trade remedy laws and their administration, Canada-US free trade, at least for Canada, will not be free. That is because, without such a mechanism, unhampered access to the US market is not guaranteed.

The dispute settlement mechanism that apparently has been agreed upon by Canada and the United States falls short of an acceptable mark. The mechanism does not impose effective controls on domestic US trade remedies that bedevil Canadian industry. It is not binding, if that word is to be given any serious meaning. There is essentially no provision for provincial or private sector participation.

First, I would like to get some facts clear. So that my friends understand, they have to read the agreement, they have to look at US trade law. It is just not good enough to stand up and say: “I believe in free trade. It is good for Canada.” Saying it does not make it so.

The facts are, quite simply, the US has four major trade remedy laws. The first is the antidumping law. The second is the countervailing duty law. The third is sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act, whereby the US can take any action under the GATT agreement against any trading country which violates those international agreements. The fourth is section 337 of the Tariff Act, which is the provision under which the US parties are permitted to address unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles into the US.

I would like to suggest that the free trade agreement is woefully inadequate in dealing with these trade law remedies and the effect they might have on Canada.

First, the antidumping and countervail laws, Canada has not been exempted from US anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws. They exist, they stay the same, and they will stay the same under the trade deal. The substantive US law defining countervailable subsidies and dumping has not been changed. Finally, the financial review panel will review US administrative decisions to determine if they are in accordance with US law, nothing more than that.

Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act will continue to operate, and the trade deal does absolutely nothing to limit their application. Section 337 of the Tariff Act, the fourth US trade law remedy, is not limited in any way in its application by the free trade agreement.

I suggest that the trade agreement does nothing to change, alter or impair the application of US trade law remedies on Canadian firms, Canadian exporters and Canadian enterprise.

The conclusion reached by the Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan and Hartson, whom we retain, whose report was tabled in this House for public scrutiny -- and I take it my friends have read it -- is quite simply: “Based on the information available, the agreement does not make a broad-base departure from current US trade remedy law. Unfortunately, under this agreement, the dispute settlement mechanism falls far short of any goal set forward by the Prime Minister.” As far as trade actions against Canada are concerned, the panel is only empowered to determine whether they are consistent with US laws and regulations. The panel is not able to assess the fairness of any trade law. It is not empowered to hear new evidence. It merely replaces the US courts as a final form to enforce trade laws that have been used against us in the past.”

Given that background of the continuing existence of the US trade remedy laws, the countervail, the antidumping, the Tariff Act and the Trade Act, I think we have to consider those as a backdrop against perhaps the most significant reference in the agreement to the provinces, and that is the extent of obligations clause.

Let me read it to you, “The parties to this agreement shall ensure that all necessary measures are taken in order to give effect to its provisions including their observance, except as otherwise provided in the agreement, by state, provincial and local governments.”

The clause means, quite simply, that the provisions of the agreement apply to provinces, unless the provinces are specifically exempted. Nowhere in the agreement are provinces specifically exempted. Provincial laws are now subject to challenge on the ground that they violate the terms of this agreement. The clause also means the federal government must ensure -- and I underline “ensure” -- provincial compliance. This goes well beyond its duty under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade with respect to provincial compliance. The effect quite simply is that the federal government is now obliged to tell the provinces to change their laws and ensure that provincial laws conform with and give effect to the free trade agreement.

1650

Given the limited dispute resolution mechanisms that exist in the trade agreement, it is worth turning to take a brief look at them and see how they will give effect to the obligation of the federal government to force provincial laws to comply with the free trade agreement.

The free trade agreement does two things. It sets up a Canada-United States Trade Commission and, underneath the Canada-United States Trade Commission, a binational panel. The binational panel is to replace court review of administrative antidumping and countervailing duty decisions. It is important to note that the provinces do not have access to this process. The provinces used to have access to the US courts to apply US laws to unfair activity. They do not now. The substantive antidumping and countervailing duty laws remain unchanged and yet the provinces cannot do a thing about it.

Second, the Canada-United States Trade Commission, the essential elements of which are mediation, consultation and arbitration, is a dispute resolution mechanism dealing with any measure by any province or the federal government which is designed to nullify or has the effect of nullifying or impairing an expected benefit under the free trade agreement. Once again, the provinces have no access to that process.

Just to repeat and go over the logic of that situation, the legal text provides that the federal government must compel the provincial and local governments to comply with the trade agreement, using all necessary measures to do so. Provincial measures which appear to nullify or impair the expected benefits of the free trade agreement are subject to the general dispute resolution mechanism.

The provinces do not have access to the binational panel, which replaces court review, and there is no provision for provincial participation in the general dispute resolution mechanism, all of which, I suggest, is a very grave situation and requires commentary, particularly in light of the official opposition’s amendment which would require “an unequivocal commitment not to legislate, regulate or co-operate in any way to implement the agreement in any area of provincial jurisdiction.”

It is not the first time the official opposition has raised this issue in this House, but in the light of the final text I suggest that the motion is, at the very least, ineffective and an exercise in futility. As I said in October and I say to members now, all the amendment does is to make the lawyers richer, and that is the lawyers who engage in trade litigation. The province of Ontario does not have a big stick to play in that game. It does have a big stick to play in another game and that is the politics of the situation; that is, in the expression of opinion of this Legislature to the Parliament of Canada as to whether we support this deal. I think it is fairly clear that a large number of us do not support this deal. Now is the time to make that clear and that is the purpose of the resolution.

I am sorry my friend the Leader of the Opposition is not here. He has referred to the fact that he is sorry the Premier is not here. Well, I am sorry he is not here; I am sorry the interim leader for the third party is not here.

Mr. Laughren: We are sorry members.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: You are all sorry too? I am glad to hear that. I suggest you take it up with them.

Mr. Pope: We’re all sorry we’re here.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Well, you can leave if you like.

My friend the Leader of the Opposition has referred to this government’s trade initiative in the area of the securities industry as just another sellout, and my friend the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) has asked, “What is the Liberal alternative to this trade agreement?” l would like to answer both of those questions briefly, but let me first point out to the Leader of the Opposition that I think everyone in this House believes in the benefits of a mixed market economy, so it does us no real service to claim that principle as ours and ours alone, no matter what our party. I am sure he would agree that our economy is composed of many markets, each with its own level of maturity, competition and degree of organization. There is a great difference between the labour markets, markets for agricultural products and the securities markets. As such, each market requires significantly different degrees of regulation, significantly different degrees of protection and significantly different styles of regulation.

One regulates the labour market to protect the legitimate interests of employers and employees and to provide safety and health protection for the workers. Regulation of the securities market, on the other hand, focuses on the protection of investors and shareholders from fraud and manipulation and on ensuring the solvency of dealers. In a mature market where there is no demonstrable need to protect a mature elite from international competition and where the continued protection diminishes the vitality and capacity of domestic capital markets, I suggest to the members that the increased competition allowed by our opening of those laws is not only desirable, but necessary.

Mr. Laughren: Is this economics 101?

Mr. J. B. Nixon: For them. His leader does not seem to understand that. That was a specific principle that governed the Ontario government’s decision to expand the ownership and entry policies governing the Ontario securities market. I am truly sorry he is not here to hear that.

None the less, when we did open the securities markets, it was based on three principles which this trade agreement did not adhere to, the principles being a phased-in approach, the principle of reciprocity and the principle of multilateralism, all three of which were ignored by this trade agreement. I might add that it was a trade initiative conducted by the Ontario government on its own timetable, according to its own agenda, as opposed to this agreement which was conducted as if with a gun to its head. This resulted in a hasty, ill-conceived deal that ignores the sensitive requirements of different markets and different segments of our economy, with the result that we have a mess. That is why this government cannot support that trade deal.

I suggest those are principles the Liberal government applied in the past and would apply in the future in any trade negotiations. Just to reiterate, they are the principles of negotiating to our timetable and not the foreign timetable, the principle of reciprocity of treatment and expectation of reciprocity, the principle of a phased-in approach and the principle of a multilateral set of discussions, as opposed to a bilateral set of discussions with a much larger trading partner.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion. I think the debate is an important one, although it is quite unfortunate the governing party in the province today has not been able to take a strong position on this issue and has a motion which in effect commits the government to doing absolutely nothing about this free trade agreement that is of such grave concern to this whole province.

The only commitment included in this resolution -- we want to focus on the last few words of this resolution -- is that “Ontario opposes this agreement as detrimental to Canada’s sovereignty and economic issues, and will not be bound to implement those aspects which fall under provincial jurisdiction.” All they are committing themselves to saying is, “We will not be bound to implement.” There is no commitment not to implement and we have no assurances whatsoever that the Liberal Party will do anything to attempt to stop this agreement from going through or to protect the legitimate interests of this province and the citizens of Ontario who are so concerned about the devastating consequences that will result in the long term if this agreement does go through and receive full implementation.

It is essential that we as a Legislature act and take out these words. I want to endorse the amendment put forward by the leader of our party, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), who has put some teeth into this resolution. I hope that the Liberal Party will look seriously at our amendment and commit itself to some action on this vital issue facing our province.

We have been facing this issue for quite a period of time now, a period of well over two years, and we have heard a continuous litany of rhetoric from the Premier, expressing concern about what such a trade agreement could mean for our province. He set out a series of conditions which Ontario required if it was to endorse such an agreement, but he has never set out what in fact the province would do to stop this agreement.

I would like to go over some of the quotes we have heard over this period of time from this government which has acquiesced in the negotiation of this trade agreement, has been a player in the negotiations all the way through, and has never stood up for the people of this province and objected to a process that is selling out the interests of all our people.

Looking back more than two years ago, on November 4, 1985, he throws back at members of our party: “I probably do not have the same ideological bias the member has on this situation. I tend to be very practical.” The Premier goes on: “I am not prepared to walk into a deal that is not better for Ontario. Those are the reasons I have been so reserved about this situation.”

The Premier refused to stand up and stop the negotiating process from going on from the very beginning and has been acquiescent and led around by the Prime Minister throughout this whole process.

On November 4, 1985, again, the Premier says, “I can assure the member that we will be there protecting the interests of our auto producers, our farmers, our cultural industries and our factories here in Ontario.”

Where is the Premier today? What is this government going to do to protect the auto producers, to protect our farmers, to protect our cultural industries and to ensure that we continue to have jobs in our factories here in Ontario? There is no evidence this government is going to do anything.

On November 18, 1985, the Premier says, “We have been the one force in this country that has provided a check to the steamroller that could be built under the hands of Mr. Mulroney, if we let him get away with it.”

What kind of a check have we received from this province in terms of stopping that steamroller? Here we are more than two years after that statement and the Premier did nothing to prevent the disastrous situation we are facing today.

The steamroller in fact has steamrolled right over the Premier and we get what can only be described as a completely wimpy resolution in front of the Legislature for us to debate yesterday and today, a commitment not to be bound to implement but no commitment not to implement. We are going to hear lots of reasons why this government has to go along with the various aspects of this agreement so as not to infuriate its backers, the financial and business community of this province.

Later in November 1985, the Premier says: “At this point the frustration from our end on this discussion is we do not know where the federal government stands. In the absence of any firm positions from them, it is very hard for us. However, the member knows where we stand because I have said this publicly on many occasions.”

Throughout this process, the Premier has in fact used lots of rhetoric to indicate what he is going to stand for but has not taken any steps to stop the initiative of this federal government. He says, “One of the things we have to do is to make sure we get better deals for our exports and at the same time not give away the store....we are fighting for, in a knowledgeable and reasonable way, and I can assure the member there will not be any selloff of Ontario from our point of view.”

It is quite clear that the agreement that has been negotiated is a selloff of the interests of our province. It is a selloff of the workers of this province. It is a selloff of many of our industries. It is a selloff of our sovereignty when it comes to provincial matters, and as well a selloff of our right to control our resource heritage in particular. The Premier has not and is not taking the action needed to ensure this selloff does not happen.

The Premier continued to go along with the Mulroney initiative. In early 1986 we have statements like, “We should develop together a national consensus of what we are prepared to put on the table and what we are prepared to take off the table.” Again, the Premier went along with the Prime Minister, not fighting this whole process but acquiescing throughout.

Two months later in April 1986, the Premier tries to assure the House again, and I quote from Hansard: “I assure my honourable friend that we will remain vigilant in the protection of those interests. We are not going to let this country be steamrollered in these discussions.” Lots of rhetoric, but no action.

When it comes to one of the most critical issues, the key to the industrial economy in our province, the auto industry, the Premier provided assurances to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce that his government will fight “very, very hard” if an attempt is made to put the auto pact on the bargaining table.

Well, what happened to that? Right under our Premier’s nose, the auto pact was put on and completely gutted in the last moments of these negotiations and the Premier’s rhetoric has not bought anything for the people of the auto industry in Ontario or elsewhere in this country.

Another key issue on which the Premier has made numerous statements is the issue of whether he had a veto of this agreement. I quote from Hansard, June 3, 1986: “I am of the view that Ontario, de facto and de jure, has a responsibility in the ultimate ratification of this agreement or refusal to accept it.”

I would like to know what that was based on and what steps the government is going to take in order to fulfill the Premier’s oft-made commitment to veto an agreement which is not in the interests of this province.

A headline from the Toronto Star reads, “Premier Vows to Veto Deal if Auto Pact is Threatened.” This is another statement more than half a year later, January 1987. Asked whether he would exercise this power if the auto pact were threatened, he told reporters, “The answer is very clearly yes.” The Premier added, “There is no way I would allow the situation to develop that would change the auto pact to the detriment of the province of Ontario.”

The quotes sound great. Unfortunately, the story does not end the way the statements throughout these last two years were leading in terms of the final conclusion.

The Premier called the Auto Pact --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): I remind the other honourable members to allow the member for Sault Ste. Marie to continue. They will have a chance, I am sure.

1710

Mr. Morin-Strom: The Premier says the auto pact was “the most important document we have in this province, indeed in this country, in terms of generating wealth and I could not stand by and see that erode in any way.”

Now the members of the Liberal Party say effectively that the Premier was not telling the truth when he made these statements. They are asking me what we would do. They are admitting that the Premier now does not have the veto which he claimed he had at that point.

Then he goes on. Another big issue on which the Premier was stumped and totally incompetent in terms of being able to solve was the softwood lumber issue. When he was questioned on whether steel exports would be handled the way softwood lumber was handled so incompetently by this government, he responded, “We are very much against handling this issue the same way that the federal government handled the softwood lumber issue. That is why we are there. We are trying to anticipate these problems.”

The anticipation has gone on for over two years and, meanwhile, nothing has happened from this government to protect the interests of the people of Ontario. We have been steamrollered by the federal government and taken in by the Prime Minister and Mr. Reisman, and this government has not stood up for the interests of the people of Ontario.

We go on with another quote. When Mr. Peterson met with Clayton Yeutter, the chief trade negotiator for the United States, on January 29, 1987, the Premier says he explained to him: “The provinces, in our view, would have a veto over the implementation of any trade pact. I explained to him the importance of the auto pact to Ontario.” Now the Premier is backing out and saying he does not know if he has a veto. He cannot provide any assurance that he can do anything about this agreement. Clearly, the negotiator, Mr. Reisman, had the Premier convinced that he had a veto, when in fact the Premier has now admitted that he does not.

This is an agreement which is not in the interests of this province. It is incumbent upon this government to take the steps necessary to stop this deal from going through. We had the commitment from the Premier during the election campaign that if his six conditions were not met, he would stop the deal. Clearly, none of the conditions have been met. The government admits that the conditions have not been met. It agrees that we have a bad deal, but the best we can get from the government is a weasel-worded resolution which does not commit the government to taking any steps to fight this agreement or to stop the agreement from going through.

One of the aspects of this agreement which is of particular concern has to be the sovereignty issue. One does not have to go beyond the first chapter of the free trade agreement to realize that it is a bad deal and a deal that infringes on our provincial authority. In fact, article 103 states in part, “The parties to this agreement shall ensure that all necessary measures are taken in order to give effect to its provisions, including their observance...by state, provincial and local governments.”

Surely the Premier is going to have to act on behalf of this province to launch a constitutional challenge in order to protect the legitimate rights and responsibilities of this Legislature as a governing body in Ontario. Just several weeks ago, the Premier’s party in this Legislature abandoned the Premier’s rhetoric and voted down a New Democratic Party resolution in this Legislature that would have had the government of Ontario refuse to implement any part of the agreement that fell within provincial jurisdiction. It is essential that this government pursue all legal, constitutional and political challenges to stop this agreement, but there is no commitment whatsoever from this government in fact to do so.

Through the process leading up to this, we have had a select committee which looked at this issue very seriously. Unfortunately, over the year and a half that we looked at this issue, the Liberals on the committee supported the position of the Conservatives throughout and, as a result, we ended up with two reports, an interim report and a final report, both of which endorsed the whole negotiating process and supported the objective of achieving for Ontario and for Canada a bilateral, comprehensive free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.

The majority reports on these committees, on which I had the opportunity to serve, were both endorsed in totality by the Conservative and the Liberal members of the committee. The New Democrats wrote dissents to these reports, objecting to the whole process, seeing in fact where we were headed with this agreement, as so many other groups across Canada have seen. There is only one objective of this whole process, and that is the objective of moving Canada towards economic integration with the United States. It is quite clear that the business community’s objective is to take away the requirements that they live under Canadian law and to move us as close as possible to giving Canada the same set of rules as the business community has within the United States.

More fundamental than any other issue is the need for us to maintain our sovereignty and to be able to establish as a people what we feel is right and proper for the future of this country, not what the business community feels is right and proper; it is not for the people on Bay Street to decide what is right and proper, and most particularly not what the people on Wall Street believe is right and proper for the future of Canada.

One of the issues that is of particular concern is the threat this agreement poses for regional development. If we are going to move into a mode of economic activity and operation similar to what the United States has, that is going to have dire consequences for the outlying areas of our province and of the country as a whole. This agreement does not benefit the resource sector, it does not benefit the area of the province I come from in northern Ontario and it will not provide the jobs that areas such as that are required to have for the future of our citizens and to ensure that we have a more balanced economy in the years to come.

In northern Ontario the forest products and the mining industries are the backbone of the economy. There are over 90,000 people who produce mineral products worth some $8 billion. There is another $8.5 billion in lumber, wood pulp, newsprint, paper products and paperboard, with 70,000 jobs. You get a sense of the importance of these resources and their trade with the United States.

Historically, there has been free trade, that is no tariff barriers with the United States, in Ontario’s minerals, lumber, kraft, pulp and newsprint. The US requires our products and it is never going to shut the door on our products. They use them for the production and manufacture of goods and services, an activity we should be trying to do much more of in our country rather than shipping out those raw materials for processing in the United States.

1720

It is not surprising that these industries, many of which are controlled and owned in the United States, are in favour of the Mulroney deal. They argue that the deal ensures continued access to US markets in the face of American protectionism. However, in fact, nothing in the agreement prevents US anti-dumping or countervail measures such as were threatened in the softwood lumber case. The dispute settlement mechanism will not guarantee Canadian access.

Article 1902, paragraph 1, of the final free trade agreement states categorically: “Each party reserves the right to apply its antidumping law and countervailing duty law to goods imported from the territory of the other party. Antidumping law and countervailing duty law include, as appropriate for each party, relevant statutes, legislative history, regulation, administrative practice and judicial precedents.”

It is clear that a broad scope of measures is contemplated.

Article 1904, paragraph 2, of the agreement is equally categorical that the binational dispute settlement mechanism will only determine whether a given anti-dumping or countervail duty measure is “in accordance with the anti-dumping or countervailing duty law of the importing party.” Any appeal will be limited to matters of process, not substance.

Whether an American countervail or anti-dumping duty is fair to Canadian products will never be the issue. Even if there were an agreement that guaranteed access, and not this Mulroney sellout, it would only mean the status quo. Forest products industry spokesmen have been quite clear that free trade will not mean new jobs and they have made this statement on a number of occasions.

What we need to produce the new jobs in the resource sector is not trade of our raw materials; what we need is a concerted effort by the federal government, and most particularly by our provincial government, to ensure that the processing of our mineral and forest resources is going to occur within our province, as much as possible in those areas the products are coming from, right in northern Ontario. If we were putting the value added that we should be into the products coming out of the north, we would be producing and providing a lot more jobs in that region.

We can take the example of a social democratic country like Sweden as a model for what can be done in a resource sector in terms of creating additional wealth, additional sales value from the products coming out of a region and ensuring that the unemployment rate stays down at a reasonable level.

I will tell members who question what is happening in Sweden that I came back from Sweden in late October. The unemployment rate in Sweden in the month of September was 1.9 per cent. The unemployment rate in Norway was 1.4 per cent. In comparison, the results in this province are an absolute embarrassment for this government. Something it should be looking at is a commitment to full employment and how we can generate the jobs we need in this province. That is what the economic priority should be for this province and for our federal government as well.

This agreement, in particular when we look at the northern resource sector, does nothing about the deplorable duty that was imposed on softwood umber. It was one of the major irritants that provided ammunition for the free trade negotiators and has been used by Prime Minister Mulroney and the free trade proponents as an argument for why we needed this deal. In fact, the deal did nothing in respect of that duty.

When it comes to another industry in the north, the steel industry, this agreement provides no assurances that the steel industry is not going to be subject to further actions in terms of countervailing duty or antidumping procedures in the United States and no assurances that the gentlemen’s agreement, a voluntary quota currently being honoured by the Canadian steel companies, will be changed in any way.

We have no assurances and, in fact, the Canadian steel industry has indicated that it expects it will continue to abide by the same quotas it has at present, so there is no opportunity for additional steel sales in the United States. We are assured only of a percentage of a market that has over the last 20 years been declining in size. As a result, we have no indications that even one of the winning industries, theoretically, according to some of the proponents, will do anything in terms of new investment in its own industry for providing additional jobs.

This agreement also has a serious effect on provincial powers. The language of the final agreement is much tougher on provincial compliance than the October 4 agreement was. Numerous experts have a concern about the implications of article 103 which states, “The parties to this agreement shall ensure that all necessary measures are taken in order to give effect to its provisions, including their observance except as otherwise provided in this agreement by state, provincial and local governments.”

But there is more. Chapter 5 demands that “a province or state cannot discriminate in respect of measures falling within its jurisdiction against imported products.” How on earth can we develop a strategy which would give preference to Ontario-made goods as part of the development of new industrial sectors if we are not able to provide purchasing preference to ensure, wherever possible, that we purchase goods that are produced in this province?

There is an obvious concern that the federal government, through this trade deal, is circumventing the province’s right to set policies within its own jurisdiction. Ontario must declare its intention not to implement any part of this deal falling within its jurisdiction. It must pursue a constitutional challenge to this deal. If not, the implications for the province as a whole, and certainly for northern Ontario, are very serious.

One of the most serious concerns has to deal with energy policy. This is a concern not only in Ontario but also across the whole country. The free trade agreement’s continental energy policy will put Canada’s cheap and abundant energy supply at risk. Resource industries will lose one of their main competitive advantages.

In northern Ontario in particular, we carry a significant energy burden because of the distances we have to travel, the colder climate we have and the poor highway system we have. These burdens will intensify under this agreement. The energy provisions, combined with the thrust of the free trade agreement, preclude any government intervention in the economy and almost guarantee that a measure such as reducing Ontario Hydro rates as an economic development tool would be impossible in the future.

We know the current minister has shown no interest in using Hydro as an economic development tool. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that a future Minister of Energy will do something on behalf of the people of this province in encouraging new industrial development and more jobs, particularly in northern Ontario.

1730

One of the biggest concerns about this agreement is that it potentially threatens all regional development programs. The softwood lumber case is quite enlightening in this regard. In the United States international trade agency’s preliminary ruling, seven provincial government programs, five federal government programs and four federal-provincial programs were deemed to confer trade-distorting subsidies to Canadian softwood producers. This leaves aside the issue of stumpage fees.

Among the programs identified were investment tax credits, regional development incentive programs and the general development agreements. Our whole program for northern Ontario is a Utopian dream under the free trade agreement.

For example, we will never see a real, effective northern Ontario heritage fund financed partly through government resource income which northerners could control and which would be used to finance new manufacturing ventures in the north. We could well be prevented from ever implementing special measures to equalize gasoline prices, a high priority for the people of northern Ontario, although it is not a high priority for the current government. We could well be prevented from undertaking significant highway construction as a tool for economic development.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has a double standard on free trade. It opposes it to protect the manufacturing industries in southern Ontario, at least in words and rhetoric. However, it refuses to intervene to help develop manufacturing across the north. The Liberals continue to leave the north vulnerable to the status quo of resource dependency.

This free trade agreement would ensure that the government’s hands, not only in the hands of this Liberal Party but potentially in the hands of our party in the future, could well be tied. When it comes to northern Ontario, this government could well be using free trade as an excuse for its own inaction. This government has shown no interest in action on this item.

This agreement is going through as far as the Liberal Party in Ontario is concerned. It is incumbent upon the individual members of the Liberal Party to realize that they are being led down the path by this particular resolution which commits the government to doing nothing. If in fact they represent their constituents and believe that this agreement is an economic doomsday for the future of our province, then they will have to stand up and support the amendment that has been put forward by the New Democratic Party that would ensure there is a commitment from this province to stop the trade deal and to take every legal, constitutional method that is at our disposal to stop this agreement from going through.

The future of economic development in our province rests with whether this agreement reaches implementation or not. If we get to the stage -- to that date of January 1, 1989, which is not that far away -- when the implementation starts, we have a very serious problem in turning back the clock and getting this agreement stopped.

We do not have the assurances that the Premier’s only solution, a federal election, will occur before that date. Certainly it is in Mr. Mulroney’s interest not to call a federal election in 1988, because I am sure the results will be disastrous for him. If he takes what is the wise course for himself and puts that election off until 1989, we have no assurances, with the huge majority we have facing the people of Canada in the federal government, that anything can be done on the national level to stop this agreement from being signed, to stop legislation from being passed at the federal level and to stop the beginning of the implementation on January 1, 1989.

The province of Ontario has an obligation, a responsibility, to stand up for its legislative authority, to take on that responsibility, to work in conjunction with the other provinces that are opposed to this agreement and to stop this agreement from happening.

I call upon the Liberals in this government to reconsider their position and to support our very reasoned amendment that would ensure that the government will take every step at its disposal to stop this agreement from going through.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having the opportunity to speak on this debate and relinquish the floor to further members.

Mr. Speaker: Just before I recognize the next speaker, previously the member for Sarnia proposed an amendment. I have had an opportunity to review it and I would like to inform the House that it is a generally accepted rule in parliamentary procedure that an amendment to an amendment must attempt to alter or improve upon the amendment. Clearly, the proposal of the honourable member for Sarnia does not meet this basic criterion in that it attempts principally to amend the main motion. I must therefore find that the proposal is out of order.

Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Could the Speaker elaborate as to how this motion does not improve the amendment?

Mr Speaker: I have looked at it very carefully and I have come to that conclusion. I have made my ruling. I think the honourable member knows the procedure that would have to be taken after the ruling has been made.

Mr. Pope: Our party has tried, through my leader’s amendment to the amendment, to put on record its position, and also through this debate.

I would like to begin by indicating to the members of this Legislature our objection to this process being undertaken by the Liberal government of Ontario three days before the proposed adjournment date of this House, introducing a substantive resolution dealing with one of the most important issues confronting this nation over the past two years and for years to come.

The House leader for the Liberal government of this province is anticipating that all debate will be concluded within three days on this most important matter and that a substantive decision will be taken by the members of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario: three days before adjournment, limited opportunity according to the set timetable of this government for members to speak on this most important matter, which affects industries and people in every part of this province.

This government, which criticized the federal government for a hurried timetable, itself has adopted a hurried timetable to frustrate full debate of this most important measure in this House. It wants a substantive decision out of this Legislature on less than three days’ debate; that is the truth of the matter. Then it has the gall to say that we are going to have an examination of the whole issue of free trade by a committee of this Legislature. That is absolute nonsense and an affront to the democratic process in this province. It is an affront that the government would pretend we are going to have a decision taken by a committee and referred back to the House on the matter, against which it will already have a vote taken by resolution.

1740

What about the members of that legislative committee who will have to sit through weeks of hearings? What about the people of the province, the workers in the industries, the unions, the municipal and other leaders of this province, who would anticipate that the government would at least listen to them before it makes up its mind, only to find that it has passed a resolution on December 17 which effectively closes off debate and their right to have a say in the position of Ontario, their government, because it will have already taken a position on this matter?

Interjection.

Mr. Pope: I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, who was moved out of the trade issue on softwood lumber because there was mishandling of it and is now counting fish in Lake Erie for a job, that they, as the provincial government, have an obligation to the people of this province to listen to them, to allow them to come in and talk to the government and to members of a legislative committee, not their own little cabinet committee, and give their point of view on the detail of this agreement. They are going to deny that substantive right to the people of Ontario because they are bound and determined to pass this resolution before the adjournment of the House. That is what they are bound to do. By doing so, this Legislative Assembly will have taken a final and irrevocable position on this agreement. All the rest of the committee stuff is window-dressing. It is meaningless.

I would be willing to predict that the Premier is going to bring in the members or have someone else talk to the Liberal members of this committee and instruct them that they are to vote against any free trade arrangement with the United States as indicated by this agreement, that they will not accept any amendments which may have the effect of improving the free trade agreement as an expression of the will of the Legislature of Ontario and that they will brook no discussion of any substance and no vote of any substance, whether it be authored by the members of the official opposition or by the third party.

That is entirely consistent with the hypocritical attitude that the Premier has taken on the Meech Lake accord. He is in favour of the Meech Lake accord. He has indicated in the House that the members --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know there are many times when members sometimes say things that -- maybe they are aware of what they are saying in the House; I listened carefully and I would ask that the member really considers all his words very carefully as he continues to speak.

Mr. Pope: I am not sure I know what that means, Mr. Speaker, but I will consider it. Thank you very much.

As I was saying, the position of the Premier, which he will instruct the Liberal members of this committee to observe during the course of committee hearings on the free trade agreement, will be entirely the same as the position he has instructed the Liberal members to take on the committee examining the Meech Lake accord. They will not be allowed to vote against the Premier’s position. They will not be allowed to make amendments to the provisions of the Meech Lake accord. They will be instructed to follow the party line. So the Premier, having signed and accepted the Meech Lake accord, will brook no changes. That committee is nothing but window-dressing for the government’s position, as this committee will be.

This government, with its majority, will brook no opposition by vote of the committee, no amendments, no suggested improvements either with respect to the Meech Lake accord or to this trade resolution and the free trade agreement itself.

I believe that the position of the Premier and the Liberal government of this province is duplicitous. I think that they have a public agenda and a private agenda with respect to this matter, and I think it has been clear for many, many months that there was a public agenda and a private agenda at work. It is the leader of the official opposition who on a number of occasions has indicated that is his opinion, and certainly that is the one common ground we share with the members of the official opposition --

An hon. member: We don’t share many grounds but that’s one of them.

Mr. Pope: Quite correct.

An hon. member: You have no grounds for that view.

Mr. Pope: Well, let us talk about my grounds for that view. I think that is a very relevant discussion. Since I have been prompted by a member of the Liberal Party sitting in this assembly to discuss the grounds for that point of view, it forces me to review a little bit of history. To the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), I will keep the softwood lumber matter to less than three minutes.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Does it go back to pre-Confederation? That’s all I want to know.

Mr. Pope: In fact, I say to my friend the member for Scarborough West, this issue is pre-Confederation. This is not a new debate. This is a debate that this Legislative Assembly has from time to time engaged in over the centuries, let alone over the decades; so let there be no feeling that some of these issues are unique to this time in the history of this country or this province, because that simply is not so.

The member asked me for the background to that particular point of view about duplicity or the double agenda. If I could just start, very briefly, because I know the Minister of Natural Resources does not want to hear this again, item 1 is that on October 20, 1986, the Premier in the Globe and Mail, says: “We’ve been snookered by Ottawa on softwood lumber. I had no idea what Pat Carney was going to say in Washington on October 1 until I read about it in the newspaper.”

Then I want to contrast that, which gives a clear indication that the Premier of this province did not know there would be an offer by Pat Carney of an eight to 10 per cent solution, with provincial participation, to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. Just to end this issue, I want to read into the record, for the edification of the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), the following letter. I will send him a copy.

September 26, 1986 -- that is, 24 days prior to the Premier’s interview with the Globe and Mail -- this letter is to Mr. G. E. Shannon, Deputy Minister for International Trade, Department of External Affairs, Lester B. Pearson Building, Ottawa, Ontario.

“Dear Mr. Shannon:

“In the interests of a national position on the softwood lumber issue, Ontario is prepared to raise revenues, largely from the softwood lumber industry, by $30 million per annum. This sum is the equivalent of a significant increase in stumpage fees for the softwood industry and might well be partly raised through other revenue-gathering mechanisms.

“We anticipate that we could schedule 50 per cent of the revenue increases to Ontario to begin January 1, 1987, and a second 50 per cent by July 1, 1987. More detail on the precise methods of implementation will be provided as soon as possible.”

This is five days before Pat Carney’s offer to the United States government and 24 days prior to the Premier’s interview with the Globe and Mail. Guess who signed that letter on September 26, 1986? It was Mary Mogford, Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, who the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology last year in estimates admitted was negotiating the softwood lumber matter on behalf of the government of Ontario. So the very issue that the Premier indicated to the Globe and Mail he knew nothing about had been approved in writing by this government, by its authorized negotiator, 24 days beforehand.

That is a public agenda and a private agenda. And is that the only example?

1750

Mr. Harris: Does what they said publicly jibe with what they said privately?

Mr. Pope: What they said publicly is totally different from the private documentation which was not provided to the members of this assembly by the Liberal government.

In case the members are concerned about the authenticity of this particular document, I would like to table a copy. I do not think one has ever been tabled in this House. I would like to ask that this be tabled so that all members can examine it; and if they wish, they can ask Mary Mogford if that is her signature, if they doubt my word on that. Also, I would like to give a copy to the member for Kitchener, because I see from the look on his face, he has never seen this document before.

Interjections.

Mr. Pope: I know that the member for Kitchener now has a more precise assessment available to him of the softwood lumber matter.

Item 2: The federal Minister for International Trade, a partisan observer of the matter of course, said the following of Premier Peterson: “He is critical and tough in public but the Ontario Premier behind closed doors is a pussycat on this issue.”

That opinion by Pat Carney, the federal trade minister, is shared by many other premiers in this country: that what is said and the posture taken by the Premier of Ontario in public is quite different from the demeanour and the posture taken by the Premier in the context of private meetings with the minister for trade of the government of Canada and the other premiers of this country.

Item 3: I refer to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) in this House yesterday, at Instant Hansard, page 9, if members wish the reference. I am quoting:

“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.’”

The Leader of the Opposition took the natural interpretation of this congressman’s comments to mean that publicly the Premier was saying one thing but privately, in meetings with congressmen down in the United States, he was taking a different position.

Item 4: On April 16, 1987, as reported in the London Free Press, the Premier says, “I cannot tell you if we are getting the straight goods or not; we are not in the room.” Funny about that, because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) last Thursday in estimates admitted that representatives of the government of Ontario had been at 19 liaison committee meeting for the negotiating team since January 1, 1987, and had been fully apprised of the positions the government of Canada was taking.

It is funny. They were not in the room, but they were at 19 liaison committee meetings in which they were being briefed and their Premier attended numerous first ministers’ conferences where he was briefed on the contents of the deal.

Item 5: We have the public declaration in so many forms and in so many forums by the Premier of this province that he would veto this deal, that he would stop it dead in its tracks, that he would institute legal challenges to this deal. Time and time again during the course of the election campaign in 1987, and well before it, he said that Ontario could veto this deal.

Now, after asking for so long for the legal opinions that he had to back that position, we have the Premier of this province yesterday in the House making a very interesting and significant admission. I think it is an admission that he never had a legal opinion to back his stance with respect to veto, with respect to constitutional challenge, that he authored so many months and two years ago.

Let us look at the opinion of the Premier of this province as enunciated yesterday and compare it with the opinions he was voicing in this Legislature and to the people of Ontario over the past two years. Is that not the issue I am trying to talk about, what is being said publicly at one point in time and what actually happens at another point in time?

I refer to page 10 of the Instant Hansard of yesterday’s proceedings in the afternoon, “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” -- that is the first position; then he immediately goes to his second position – “and that the odds of any successful application at this time would be very, very low and probably negligible.”

In the same sentence he says it is not referable and then he says if it is referable, we will not win. This is the same Premier who not too many weeks and months ago was saying that Ontario had a veto, that Ontario could frustrate this deal, that Ontario could make sure it was never implemented.

Then the Premier goes on to say, and this is the beginning of a very interesting digression of the Premier’s position even on the implementation legislation -- I know the lawyers in this room will listen to these words: “Where it becomes a constitutional issue potentially is in the implementation legislation which may or may not follow at some time in the future.”

If we analyse those words carefully, is that not the beginning of the evolution of a legal strategy by the Premier of this province not to challenge the implementation legislation at the federal level? Is that not the beginning of a final pullout from the legal strategy the Premier adopted some many months ago when he was David “Macho Man” Peterson, who could veto this deal, frustrate it and make sure it was never brought about?

Item 7: When I talk about a public stance versus a private stance, it has to do with domestic wines, one of the major concerns of this government and this Premier. The Premier’s position was very clear. The free trade agreement reduced the protection for domestic wines. That was the only issue: if the free trade agreement reduced the protection, the markup policy, cast it asunder, for domestic wines, Ontario would do nothing to implement those provisions.

That is giving him a generous interpretation of his position, by the way. But the happiest man in the world when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ruling came down was the Premier, because under the guise of the GATT, he proceeded to implement the free trade provisions with respect to domestic wines and had a 12-year phase-out period. The only argument he has is over two years, and even one of those years has gone now.

We can see that where our free trade agreement challenges the markup policy of the government of Ontario, it will not be acceptable, but where a GATT ruling changes the markup policies of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario or reduces the protections for the domestic wine industry of this province, that is OK. Somehow there has to be consistency there, but if some Liberal member can find it, I welcome his comments in this debate.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: There is.

Mr. Pope: Oh yes, I bet there is.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member might take a glance at the clock. If you have further comments, you might wish to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Pope: I am sorry. One sentence: I will deal tomorrow with items 8 and 9, financial services and the two-track, public-versus-private position of this government.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

16 décembre 1987