Journal des débats 1987-déc-23 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs. Grier: The tragic sinking of a ferryboat in the Philippines this week has meant that for many Ontario families Christmas, instead of being a time of joy, has become a time of sorrow. Even yet, the extent of the disaster is not fully known, and families wait in fear for news of their relatives and loved ones.

In Ontario, there are over 60,000 residents of Filipino origin. If the government has not already done so, I hope it will convey to President Corazon Aquino an expression of sympathy and continued support from the people of Ontario.

The United Council of Filipino Associations in Canada plans a national fund-raising drive to aid the families of victims of the sinking and hopes to work with the International Red Cross to create links between Filipino communities in Canada and these families.

In Toronto, a campaign to raise funds is being spearheaded by the Filipino newspaper, Balita. I know many Canadians will want to contribute to this fund. Contributions can be made through the Imperial Bank of Commerce at Dundas and Victoria Streets, and should be made out to the Philippine Sea Disaster Fund.

I think it would be fitting for the government to make a generous donation to this fund in the name of the people of Ontario. I hope it will do so in the name of all the members of this Legislature.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. McCague: This past February, Collingwood General and Marine Hospital, to commemorate 100 years of service to the community, embarked on a fund-raising program with the slogan, “A Tradition of Service, A Future of Caring.”

I am pleased to report that this fund now amounts to a very commendable $4 million. In 1984, the hospital initiated a study to determine the health care needs of the area and a master plan has existed since 1985.

Over 28,000 people look to this 102-bed hospital for health care services, where, for two thirds of this past year, occupancy has exceeded 100 per cent. It is noted for its service in obstetrics and orthopaedics and is the major trauma centre for the region. It maintains an excellent around-the-clock emergency department. It supports a school of nursing assistants, with a long tradition of quality training.

Collingwood is a growing community where the demand for medical service may soon reach a crisis proportion. It is estimated that $15 million is required for upgrading and equipment, with half of this amount anticipated from the province. As yet, the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) has not given approval to proceed with the functional planning stage. With tremendous community support and well-documented medical requirements, I urge the Minister of Health to give this project her very highest priority. A century of service certainly deserves a future of caring.

CHRISTMAS CAROL

Mr. Owen: What about Ontario is best known to the other parts of the world? If you thought about the CN Tower or the Ontario Science Centre, you would be wrong. In fact, it is a Christmas carol almost 350 years old.

Father Jean de Brébeuf lived among the Huron Indians for 22 years, learning their language and ways and teaching them his faith. The Indians found the church’s music and hymns strange. Father Brébeuf took a 16th century French song and wrote words describing God as the Gitchi Manitou or great spirit, the wise men as three chiefs and a stable of broken bark and swaddling clothes as a ragged robe of rabbit skin. It is believed the carol was first sung by the Indians 346 years ago, in 1641.

In 1648, the Iroquois invaded Huronia. Father Brébeuf was warned to flee to safety, but he chose to remain with his loved flock. He died after many hours of extreme torture. The Iroquois were in awe of his courage and strength.

The Hurons who survived continued to sing Father Brébouf’s carol. Today, all over the world, all nationalities remember the nativity with the compelling language and images originating in our own Huronia and our own Ontario.

TRADE RESOLUTION

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I rise to inform the Liberal back-benchers why we are here today and why we will be here next week.

I would like all members to remember that the theme the Liberal Party ran on in the last election was “leadership that is working.” There are 94 members of the Liberal Party in the Ontario Legislature and a combined opposition of only 35 members; yet we have not been able to pass Bill 51. So this Sunday coming along there will be no protection for workers who are working on Sunday. In fact, there has been no legislation passed at all.

Then, of course, there is this free trade motion that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) introduced in the name of the Liberal government, a resolution that sits on the fence, a resolution that has been described in many ways by this opposition party, but certainly a resolution that commits this government in no way, shape or form to opposition to free trade.

In an effort to try to solve the impasse that has been reached in this Legislature, our party proposed yesterday an amendment to this resolution, which we thought would have satisfied the Liberal Party as well as the Conservative Party, and I would like to read it into the record. It would have been an amendment.

“However, it is the Legislative Assembly’s determination to permit the widest possible consultation on an issue of this importance to Canada, and it is the prerogative of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to examine the proposed free trade agreement in detail and to seek representations from the people of Ontario and to refer it out to committee.”

This would have solved their problem and ours and we submit --

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

Mr. Harris: I would have given up some of my time to hear the end of that.

This government’s swelled head is just nature’s frenzied effort to fill a vacuum. The Premier not only starts things he cannot finish, but he starts things he cannot even begin. The Liberal Christmas gift to Ontario is a list of its initiatives. The propaganda in their glossy little end-of-session pamphlet confirms that the only thing this government has ever achieved on its own is dandruff or great snow jobs.

The reality is that this government has proved that bigger is not necessarily better and that sometimes more is less. The bigger Liberal government provided less leadership, less direction and less vision than even its critics had thought conceivably possible.

The legislative record in the first session was spectacularly unproductive. The Liberal government, after only two years in office, is already into statutory reruns. As of today, the government has introduced a total of 46 bills; of those, 26, or more than half, are carryovers from the previous parliament. In other words, it has brought forward only 20 new bills, few of which have any substance. It continually tries to grab headlines by promising to abolish QCs. Bill 15 is the third bill introduced by the Liberals. I assume we will see it next session, next year and the year after that as well.

Apparently, the burdens of majority are proving too much for the Liberals. They appear to be in an overdrawn position at the idea bank. To date since the election, not one single piece of legislation has been passed.

1340

Mr. Reycraft: I would like to respond to some of the comments that have just been made by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris). There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding and misinformation being put forward about this government’s position on the issue of free trade. I want to say that the House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), has made his position on this matter very clear to the other House leaders.

We indicated that pending receipt of the final text on the Canada-US trade agreement, the issue of a debatable motion should be put forward. We agreed that the final text would be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. As well, we discussed debating the free trade issue. At the request of the member for Windsor-Riverside, Mr. Speaker, and with your concurrence, we agreed to set aside any such debate until Tuesday, December 15 -- this was some time ago -- to accommodate the absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) on December 14.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the final text of the agreement was not available until Friday, December 11. The following Monday, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) tabled the text and indicated in his remarks that a resolution would be introduced for debate the following --

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is there some reason the clock was running?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are wasting time. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The point of order is that I am not sure why the clock was running before I was recognized. At the point that I was recognized, it had already run down 15 seconds. I think I should have 45 seconds to make my statement, if there is agreement.

Mr. Speaker: The standing orders state that there shall be up to 10 minutes. If the members wish to change those standing orders and give unanimous consent for 45 seconds -- is there agreement?

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: There are 45 seconds for the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I thank the generosity of the House.

I would like to say that I am kind of surprised to know that we have a statement from the government whip on this matter of why we are here. I do not know if members of the Liberal Party have actually seen the fact that this government of theirs has actually sent a letter already to the Prime Minister of Canada and to Ambassador Niles, indicating that government policy is the resolution it is putting forward. There is no capacity to amend it. There is no capacity for the members as individuals to have any effect on it. This is what is known, by the way, as the tyranny of the executive over the majority of the House, not just the minority in the House.

The amendment we were proposing yesterday would have referred this resolution, which they have already put forward as government policy anyway, off to the committee which is dealing with the free trade issue and would have allowed us all to have the sensible situation of getting out of here for Christmas, being with our families and allowing people on this assembly’s staff to do the same kind of thing, instead of the incompetence we have seen.

RECORD OF DEBATES

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The long-standing practice of Hansard is not to print the text of interjections made by members who do not have the floor unless (1) the member is called to order by the Speaker or (2) the interjection is responded to by the member who has the floor. That makes sense because then it will flow in the printed Hansard if the interjection is there.

On Monday, October 21, 1985, you yourself ruled in response to a point of order raised by the then member for Leeds. “As members are aware, interjections, being out of order, are not recorded unless they elicit a response.”

This morning one of our staff members confirmed with one of the Hansard editors that this practice still continues, namely, interjections that are not responded to are not recorded and that interjections which are responded to are recorded in Hansard.

My point of order relates to two similar interjections made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on Monday. During question period, the Minister of the Environment interrupted the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) to suggest that New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna’s support for free trade had been bought by a frigate contract. There is no doubt the comment was made.

Today’s Toronto Star, in an article entitled Bradley Backtracks on Frigate Barb, reports:

“In a tape of the discussion in the Legislature Monday, Bradley can be heard shouting "For a frigate’ when Progressive Conservative leader” -- my leader -- “Andy Brandt pointed out to Premier David Peterson that seven of the 10 premiers support the trade deal.”

On page 24 of the Instant Hansard for that day we see the leader of this party, my leader, did indeed respond to the interjection.

My leader said: “I very clearly heard the Minister of the Environment say that the only reason New Brunswick supported the deal was it was bought off by the frigate deal. I think that is beneath your minister. That is exactly what he said.”

I believe there can be no doubt that the interjection was picked up and was responded to. I would suggest that, according to the guidelines of Hansard, the minister’s comment should have been recorded, yet it was not. I bring it up now because there is still time before the final Hansard goes out.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to look at a second one, later in the day at 3:20 p.m. According to Instant Hansard, the Minister of Natural Resources made an interjection during the speech of the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). Quoting the member for Cochrane South, on page 45: “Last week we had Frank McKenna, the newly elected Liberal Premier of New Brunswick, finally came on board and said he thought on balance that free trade agreement was a good thing to go on. The Minister of Natural Resources has just said, for the record, exactly what the Minister of the Environment said during question period, that Mr. McKenna came on board for six frigates.”

When we examined the videotape of that speech this morning, we saw quite clearly that the member paused after the first sentence, heard the interjection from the minister and then responded in the second sentence, but Hansard has printed the two sentences one after the other, without a break.

On the next page the minister tries to clarify his remarks. There is no doubt there was an interjection and a response from the member who had the floor, but the interjection again is not recorded in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to examine the tapes of Monday’s proceedings as well as the notes taken by the stenographers -- it should be noted the Minister of the Environment sits right beside them, so I know it was picked up -- to find out why the two comments, which by your own guidelines should have been printed, have disappeared from Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly take a look at the request made by the member for Nipissing.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

INDUSTRIAL RESTRUCTURING COMMISSIONER

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to inform members of the House of the appointment of Malcolm Rowan as Ontario’s new industrial restructuring commissioner effective January 1, 1988.

This appointment reflects the high priority that this government places on dealing directly with the necessary restructuring of some industries in this province. In creating this position, we are honouring our commitment made in the throne speech in the spring.

It is an integral part of our efforts to implement an economic strategy for Ontario that will assist in the transition to a more technologically and competitively oriented international marketplace.

The industrial restructuring commissioner will, at my direction, assist industries and workers to meet and adjust to the challenges imposed by technological changes and severe international competition.

The commissioner will be responsible for exploring and implementing creative adjustment alternatives to plant layoffs and closures. In this capacity, Mr. Rowan will consult with organized labour and workers, management, the local and federal governments and communities.

I have asked Mr. Rowan to take a flexible approach to his assignment. He will have access to the full range of government programs. He will also involve other ministries such as Labour, Northern Development, Treasury and Economics, Municipal Affairs, and Skills Development in developing appropriate solutions.

The industrial restructuring commissioner will supplement, not replace, the existing structures within government responsible for plant closures and layoffs. The provisions of the Employment Standards Act will continue to govern layoffs and closures.

Mr. Rowan has served in a number of senior posts since joining the Ontario government in 1972. Most recently, he was chairman of the task force on the investment of public sector pension funds.

1350

RESPONSES

INDUSTRIAL RESTRUCTURING COMMISSIONER

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to say very briefly that I find it a bit astonishing that it would take the government from April until December to announce the name of its appointee for industrial restructuring commissioner.

I can only assume the reason for the delay was that the government was considering other legislation which would give the commissioner some kind of power and it has reached a conclusion, particularly now armed with its large and complacent majority, that it does not need to provide the commissioner with any kind of legislation to do anything.

Again, we have a government without batteries; a government without movement, and a commissioner without power. All I can say is we wish Mr. Rowan, whose work for the previous Conservative administration in many different posts was well known, particularly in the energy field and other fields where the Conservatives were such creative interveners in the economy, and with a program which was so supported by the Liberal Party at that time, as members will recall.

We wish Mr. Rowan the very best, and we are sure he will have the same support from the Liberal Party that he had when he was working for the previous government.

Mr. Brandt: I welcome the announcement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) today with respect to the initiatives to prepare Ontario for the inevitable future, which is going to be highly competitive on an international basis and will involve Ontario being in the marketplace, confronted with competition from a great many countries, not the least of which will be the United States, with or without free trade.

I wonder if, in addition to the outline in his statement with respect to Mr. Rowan’s responsibilities covering plant layoffs and closures, the minister would expand that to include corporate takeovers and an analysis of that particular area of activity which is going on with increasing concern, I believe, not only in Ontario but right across Canada.

I want to share with the minister the concern that I have in many instances and why I suggest this as being perhaps another dimension of the problem that he might look at. As he is well aware, many of these corporate takeovers result in nothing more than paper shuffling and artificial profits to individuals, without any real benefit to the economy. What the government can do at the provincial level is perhaps something we could look into or discuss and debate in this House. But certainly there should be some concerted effort towards the expansion of the economy and not simply the absorption of one corporation by another, which in many instances results in nothing more than fewer jobs and the rationalization of the employees who work for the subject corporations.

The need for restructuring is something we would all agree with. I wish Mr. Rowan the very best of luck in pulling together all of the programs that will be needed with respect to moving Ontario into the next century, because the type of competition that the minister knows is inevitably going to affect us is something we have to prepare for. I would say the comments of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) at the first ministers’ conference, relative to the need for an expansion of research and development, should also be incorporated in this statement.

There is no question that when you have a province which on a per capita basis spends less than Egypt on research and development -- less than Egypt; I looked that one up just for the minister’s benefit -- then I think he has to do an analysis of how serious he is about trying to develop an industrial province that is going to be truly competitive. The foundation, the very basis for that, the very engine of growth that drives that phenomenon that we know as industrial expansion is in virtually all instances that very mysterious thing known as research and development. I think that should be looked at very carefully in the context of this particular initiative as well.

I do wish him well. We will be watching his performance carefully, as always. If he does a good job, we are prepared to say that he has done a good job. However, as has been the track record over the last while with this government, if he does less than an adequate job we will be standing up and sharing with him our views on where his shortcomings are as well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for the arrival of His Majesty. When His Majesty comes, I will have some questions for him.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is possible to ask a question of His Majesty. Which minister do you wish to address your question to?

Mr. B. Rae: When the first one is here, I will ask a question of the first minister.

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed to let the Leader of the Opposition stand down the question?

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I too have the same problem. As soon as I hear the trumpets blaring, I will know we are ready to go.

Mr. Speaker: If that is agreed, we will continue with questions.

Mr. Brandt: I still have my second leader’s question.

Mr. Speaker: The second?

Mr. Brandt: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: Yesterday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) --

An hon. member: Where is Alan Pope?

Mr. Callahan: Bring back Alan Pope. He’s out there campaigning for the leadership. He’s getting a jump on you, Mike.

Mr. Harris: I talked about the member’s mouth yesterday. Does he want me to start talking about it again today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing has a question to which minister?

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Solicitor General. That was the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan) I was talking about earlier, for Hansard.

Yesterday, the Premier simply laughed at the suggestion that anyone in Ontario is confused about December 27 Sunday shopping and store openings. The situation is so clear, the Premier said, yet the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), a legend in his own mind on legal matters, could only advise workers and employers to hire a lawyer, in response to reporters’ questions yesterday about the right to refuse work or to open.

Since the Premier says there should be no confusion, will the Solicitor General today assure people who are open that she will authorize the Liberal Party of Ontario to pay all legal expenses incurred by following the Attorney General’s advice and hiring a lawyer?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member well knows that I can make no guarantees on behalf of the Liberal Party. I have no authority there.

Mr. Harris: That helps to clear up the confusion that is out there. I am sure the Attorney General will appreciate the support the minister has given him.

I would like to know if the minister can clear up any confusion resulting from one of her own actions. The Solicitor General should be aware that workers in the business community in North Bay have come up with an agreement that every retail store in the city will close on Sunday. Now she has sent letters to the mall owners asking them to give store owners the choice to open or close. In trying to clean up a problem in some areas of the province, the minister has opened the whole mess up again in North Bay.

My supplementary is, assuming that anybody listens to her, does the Solicitor General not realize she is now insisting that the mall stores in communities like North Bay, where an agreement has already been achieved, now be given an option, and if one single store exercises that option in North Bay the whole deal falls apart?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member well knows that my intention in writing to mall owners was to support the small stores which wished not to open. We have succeeded very well in that. Every mall owner we have heard from has agreed to give this choice.

I am sure if people in a local community have made their own agreement, they will keep their agreement. I do not imagine the people in North Bay will suddenly break their word to each other simply because l did something to try to assist small stores across this province. If the member knows something about the store owners in North Bay that I do not, then I am sorry.

Mr. Harris: I am not asking the minister to apologize; I am asking her to do something.

It was the mall owners who agreed, not all the individual store owners. The minister now is encouraging the mall owners to say, “Give them a choice.” We have a situation where the Attorney General has given big stores permission to break the law, the Solicitor General is encouraging mall owners to take advantage of a loophole in the law, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) wants, although his government will not give it to him, to give protection to some workers and not to others, and the public is becoming more and more outraged by this fiasco.

1400

The only one who is not confused, apparently, is the Premier. Last August, in the middle of the campaign, he said there is widespread support for a common pause day in Ontario and he would not be making any changes. That is what he said in the campaign.

My final supplementary is, instead of all the tinkering by all the ministries, why will the minister not do one simple thing to clean up the whole mess and bring in a one-paragraph bill today that says all retail stores will be closed on December 27?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: It seems fairly apparent to me and to the members in the House that we are not going to be able to bring in even the bill we do have in front of us which is to protect the workers in the stores that should not be open. We have done what we could do to assist the small store owners in the malls on December 27, and I am sure the member does not really wish to suggest that this was not well received by the workers in those stores.

ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL BOARD

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food concerning the operation of the Ontario Food Terminal. In 1979, the standing committee on procedural affairs of this Legislature examined the operation of the terminal and in its report pointed out that when the terminal was built, stalls were leased to wholesalers for, in effect, perpetuity at a fixed rate of rent.

The report went on to say that in essence, as a result of public legislation which has effectively restricted entry to this market, the lessees, who were of course private interests, were making windfall profits. At that time it recommended that the terminal’s leases be altered to eliminate the effective granting of perpetual leases.

I brought to the attention of the minister seven months ago that one subtenant was now being asked to pay $800,000 for the privilege of transferring the lease on 2,000 square feet to his name and the minister has replied to the effect that there is nothing he can do. Does the minister’s failure to act mean that he condones this unconscionable ripoff that gives private interest windfall profits at the expense of small family businesses?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am delighted to have a question asked by the honourable member, who appears to be expanding her horizons with questions to various ministries rather than just to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). I am a little surprised that she would ask that question, because I sent her what I thought was a rather detailed letter regarding the activities that my ministry is involved in to address the very concern that she has about the operations of the food terminal.

Let me repeat that my ministry has undertaken two initiatives to address the complaint of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. The first is to construct eight new units at the terminal to meet the demand by new commissioned firms for facilities in the Ontario Food Terminal building. It is expected that construction of the new units could start in the spring of 1988, so the member’s constituent will have a chance to apply for one of the stalls.

The Ontario Food Terminal Board has recommended that subletting be restricted in these new units, and I support this recommendation. The policy of the board is to rent to new tenants. It is developing criteria for the selection of these new tenants.

Mrs. Grier: The minister’s answer is small comfort to my particular constituent whose lease expires in February.

Given that the minister in his letter to me pointed out that it would require legislation in order to aid the existing tenants, can the minister give the House some undertaking that in those cases where there are leases that have another 24 or 30 years to run -- in addition to the eight new stalls that may be built; they have been promised for a very long time -- he will take some action before the next 24 years are up to help the existing tenants?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The Ontario Food Terminal Board has, at my request, undertaken an intensive review of the Ontario Food Terminal Act with the board’s solicitor. It may mean that we will have to amend the legislation to put a stop to the concerns she has regarding subletting. I will await the final review with the solicitor, and if it is the recommendation that we change the legislation, then the member may be surprised how quickly I will come into this House with an amendment to the legislation.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Premier. He was kind enough to release yesterday copies of letters that he wrote to Mr. Mulroney and Ambassador Niles setting out what he described as the official position of the government of Ontario.

For the longest time, the Premier was telling us that he could not possibly indicate what the official position was until the Legislature had indicated what it was by means of a vote. He then abandoned that position yesterday and decided to write them anyway what the official position is of an unamended resolution that is now being debated in the House.

In light of that, does the Premier not feel more than a little foolish and indeed incompetent to have refused yesterday a very, very logical proposal made to his House leader by my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) that the entire resolution be referred to the committee, along with sessional paper 108? There would be nothing taken away and no other amendments added. We were prepared to recognize that the Premier was not going to accept our amendments. Nobody would press a particular case. The Progressive Conservative Party was willing to accept the fact that the resolution was going to be moved into committee.

What possible objection would the government have, with all the members it has, with staff all around wanting to spend time with their families -- a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do? Why would the Premier reject that very reasonable proposal from our party?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the honourable House leader for the government side has been most reasonable throughout this entire discussion. There are several aspects to it, but I am happy to discuss it with my honourable friend.

I took the opportunity yesterday to put forward to Mr. Mulroney and the American ambassador officially the position of the government in Ontario. It is my view that when the Legislature speaks on this question it will carry even more weight. We are hopeful that the New Democratic Party can be persuaded to support this resolution.

Most people know the outcome of the vote that will be taken in this House, although I respect the fact that a number of members want to speak on it. It is indeed a debate of historic proportions. We put it into the House as quickly as we possibly could upon receiving the final text, as we said we would do, and now that debate is going forward.

I have no problems sitting here and having a debate about it. I think it is quite constructive. I think it would add weight to the government’s position to have a final resolution from the Legislature, and we are happy to have that debate as long as it goes and convey that to the government when a resolution has finally been made.

Mr. B. Rae: I want the Premier to know that what we are talking about is civility between parties in this House. I want him to know that in my 10 years of experience in the Legislature and in the House of Commons I have never seen a government less thoughtful of the lives of members of this place, less thoughtful about the lives of people who work for the government and who work for the assembly, and less intelligent about how to work out a reasonable compromise between parties. I have never in my experience seen that before.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is question period. Does the member have a supplementary question?

Mr. B. Rae: I certainly do. What is wrong with the proposal from us that would simply add to his resolution the following words, “It is the Legislative Assembly’s determination to permit the widest possible consultation on an issue of this importance to Canada, and as it is the prerogative of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to examine the proposed agreement in detail,” which the Premier himself would have to admit we have not had time to do, “and to seek representations from the people of Ontario concerning its impact on the economy of the province, therefore sessional paper 108 and this resolution are referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs for a report to the assembly”?

What could be a more reasonable proposition; that would be supported, I believe, in terms of its intent and what it would like to do, by every member in this House? What could be more reasonable than that?

1410

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the government, through the House leaders, expressed its view to you and others that we believe we should have a vote on this resolution. I guess the member’s approach is to try to water that down. It is not our approach at the moment. We are very happy to refer the trade agreement and we have said that it is very much, we believe, in the interest of all of us to go ahead and study that agreement. My honourable friend is sticking his argument on the question of referring the resolution as well. I think, and it is the government’s view, we would water down that resolution by passing it and then not passing it. If it is such a big deal, why does the member not just agree with us?

I think the honourable House leader has put forward a position in a thoughtful and reasonable way for a variety of reasons. The member and my friends opposite have dug in their heels and that is fine. It is an important debate. Let us take our time and let all members speak their minds on this important matter of the day.

Mr. B. Rae: You are the one who has dug in his heels. You have shown an arrogance that really is not becoming. It really is not becoming.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is quite exercised about this and I can understand that, but I say to him that I think the government has been fair. It has signalled and shared its intentions throughout. I say this to the member, when there is important business, this government is prepared to work.

Mr. B. Rae: This government says it is prepared to work. It has not passed one single piece of legislation since its election on September 10; not one, not one. He says they want to work. I have never seen such incompetence and arrogance combined as in the people who are sitting on that front bench over there. It is unbelievable.

I would like to ask a final supplementary question of the Premier. Their incompetence is matched only by their arrogance today. He himself referred to the letter sent by Senator Bentsen and Representative Rostenkowski to Ambassador Yeutter and to Secretary Baker. In the American Congress they are saying: “There’s no rush. There’s no push. There’s no need for us to move on this thing. We want to wait for the trade bill.” They are trying to look at the omnibus trade bill and tie it to it.

Ottawa is not in a hurry. They have managed to adjourn until January 18. I make no apology for saying I think this is a time for family. I make no apology for that and I will not. Just who does the Premier think he is, to force people to sit here on a debate he thinks he has to have, when he has not brought in one piece of legislation that he has been prepared to pass? He has a resolution that is namby-pamby at best. Just who does he think he is?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is quite exercised and I understand that. I, like him, have a little family and would like to be with my family.

One of the realities of the situation is that we have had five or six days of debate on this motion. The members opposite, for reasons of their own, want to drag this thing out and they are quite entitled to do that. If we had brought in time allocation or a closure motion, they would accuse us of incredible arrogance. We have sat here. We try to be very sensitive to the rights of the minority parties in this majority House. When the members opposite want to have an emergency debate, whether it is relevant or not, we are happy to hear them out. They have brought in several of them.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me tell you, brother, this will not be readily forgotten.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend is always saying to me and threatening me, whether it is about research money or money for members of parliament, it will not be forgotten. Majorities have to be sensitive to the rights of minorities and we are, but minorities have to be mindful, as well, of making the whole system work. I say to my honourable friends opposite that they have forgotten their responsibility and if there is arrogance in this House, it is from my friends opposite.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. B. Rae: That is precisely why we put forward a constructive amendment. That is precisely why we decided we would work. Let me tell you something, brother, for the last two and a half --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: You remember that too.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Don’t threaten.

Mr. B. Rae: I am not threatening anybody. I am just saying there are ways of behaving. Talk about incompetence.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CANADA LTD.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the Premier can tell us, does he think that a company that made $1 billion in the last three years ought to be able to provide a healthy workplace for its employees?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure of the circumstances my honourable friend is raising, but I would like to hear the details. If I can be helpful, obviously it is the government’s view that we should provide healthy workplaces.

Mr. B. Rae: The case is the one that was raised yesterday by my colleague from Hamilton, the one we have been raising in the House for some time: McDonnell Douglas. McDonnell Douglas is an American-based firm which is supported by Canadian taxpayers and which has made nearly $1 billion in profits in the last three years.

Section 40 of the Employment Standards Act and the powers in the Occupational Health and Safety Act give the government of Ontario quite extensive powers in negotiating with these companies to make sure they stay open, stay operational and do not use health and safety to blackmail their workers.

I wonder if the Premier can now tell us, since he has had the situation in hand for some time, precisely what kind of action the government is going to take on behalf of working people before Christmas.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I wish I was in a position to answer that question; unfortunately, I am not. I am very mindful of the case that was raised by the honourable member and his colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). There are discussions going on today. I am very aware of the serious allegations that have been made, in a sense on both sides. The government has been involved before in this particular case, as my honourable friend knows; but it is our view and I am sure it is the view of my friend opposite, that the government has a responsibility to make sure the company does provide a safe workplace.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier should know, if he thinks it is so important for everybody to be working, that we expect the government to be working on behalf of working people. He should know there are workers on that line who got a layoff notice. That is their Christmas present from McDonnell Douglas. McDonnell Douglas is supported by taxpayers in Ontario to the tune of literally billions of dollars in terms of what the ultimate impact of the F-18 contract is going to be.

There is a ventilation system in that plant which does not work; it needs to be fixed. Is the Premier going to make the company fix it, and is he going to make sure that workers do not pay the price for a company which is not prepared to do the decent thing on behalf of its people and which is not prepared to obey the law in Ontario? There were 212 infractions in the last inspection. Just what is the Premier going to do to enforce the law?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the point my honourable friend makes. This government will stand up for a clean environment, clean workplace, and I believe the minister has done a considerable amount of work in that regard. I wish I was in a position to give my honourable friend the details, but it is something we will be monitoring today and tomorrow as meetings are ongoing. We will try to find a resolution to this problem. I wish I could share it with him now, but I would be happy to do so tomorrow, if it develops tomorrow.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt: My question, as well, is for the first minister and it relates to the Premier’s position on the free trade question. As I understand the Premier’s position, as it has evolved over a period of time, he would in fact favour a trade agreement, it is this particular agreement that he does not like and that he does not support for various reasons.

I wonder if the Premier would indicate what those reasons are and if he would outline for us the reasons he is opposed to this particular agreement. Where are its weaknesses?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how indulgent you are prepared to be with me today in terms of time, but I could take --

Mr. Brandt: Just one or two.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It does not achieve secure access into the United States. It does not achieve exactly what the Prime Minister said he wanted to achieve. We have not got around US trade remedies and laws: countervail, antidump, 201s, 301s, 367s still stand there, and we have achieved no relief from them. That is the first one and an important one.

Do you want me to carry on from there, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Brandt: I will deal with that one. The Premier indicates that secure access would be one of the factors that would be necessary in order for him to give his imprimatur to this particular agreement. If, in fact, the Premier were to secure the kind of access I believe he is looking for, he would literally have to have control over the US trade laws in order for him to accomplish what he has just set out.

If the kind of secure access he is looking for was possible under any trade agreement, would the Premier now share with the House what he would be prepared to give up on the part of Ontario and Canada in order to get that secure access? We recognize that in this type of international negotiations between nations, it is quite common when you sit down to negotiate a settlement that you give up something in order to get something.

If the Premier wants secure access and he wants US trade laws and US trade remedies set aside, what is the Premier prepared to give up in order to get that part of the deal accomplished for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to my friend’s question, he says those are my conditions. I can tell him they were the Prime Minister’s conditions. They were Mr. Reisman’s conditions. They were Miss Carney’s conditions. That is what they said they set out to achieve: that US trade remedy laws would not apply to Canada, period.

1420

I have checked the record on this for some considerable period. The member’s federal leader, who used to be violently opposed to free trade, has changed his mind, as the member knows. He said he was going to go in and achieve secure access and he did not.

Obviously, in answer to my friend’s question -- it is hypothetical, but I will answer it -- you would have the same rules on each side in that particular case. I recognize that in any international treaty there is a giving up of, shall we say, sovereignty, presumably to get something back, so you would have had reciprocity on those particular trade remedy laws. That is the answer to my friend’s question.

Mr. Brandt: In fact, what the Premier is saying is that he is prepared to give the United States control over Canadian trade laws, that he is prepared to allow the Americans to come in here and to establish for us the conditions under which we would trade with them. Then he would really have some concerns, I would suggest to the Premier, with respect to regional subsidies and other inducements that may be brought forward by governments to assist slow growth or marginal growth areas. Is that in fact what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend is taking a very weak case and trying to build something on top of it. I am not even sure why he is taking this line, because my honourable friend himself has said that this deal is no good if it does not escape the omnibus trade bill, and there are no guarantees even with the side letters in the deal that we are going to escape future trade remedy actions in the United States.

Part of the agreement is that they are going to chat over the next five to seven years to put new definition on that question of regional subsidies. They realize they are going to be talking about that and perhaps putting definitions on them in the next little while. But I say to my friend, obviously, the thing we wanted most was access into the US market. We have not achieved that.

I cannot understand why the member stands up in this House every day and tries to put the case of the Americans, in a sense, against the Canadians, trying to explain how we had to give up all this stuff in order to get nothing, because he puts himself in an impossible position.

Mr. Sterling: When you make a deal, it has to be fair.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend interjects and says, “When you make a deal, it has to be fair.” I agree with him. This deal is not fair. We gave up energy policy, we gave up investment policy, we gave up a whole range of things way beyond a commercial agreement, which, in my view, will have a serious effect on the future of this country.

Mr. Harris: You are the one who wants to give up Canadian trade law to the United States. You want to give up our right to make our own laws in Canada; that is what you said.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have the member for Nipissing starting to yip as well.

I believe this deal is not in the national interest. Watch what is going to happen as a result of that. I say to my friends, they are putting themselves on the wrong side of this particular situation and they put themselves on the wrong side of history.

Mr. Reycraft: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We have had two leader’s questions from the Conservatives, two leader’s questions from the New Democratic Party and it is now time to go to the rotation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) did ask a question previously.

DRUG BENEFIT FORMULARY

Mr. Cousens: With the delay giving the Minister of Health an opportunity to get to her seat, our question is directed to the Minister of Health. When is the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary coming out?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: That is a very good question. I want to thank the member for the question. I know several members have contacted me to ask about the drug formulary.

Given the number of new members in the House, for the information of members let me say that the drug formulary contains 2,500 listings of drug products and the prices at which government reimburses pharmacists who fill prescriptions under the Ontario drug benefit program.

Mr. Cousens: I just asked when. When?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The answer to the member’s question is that I am delaying the formulary because I have some concerns about the accuracy and completeness of some of the information presented to the ministry.

Mr. Cousens: Fancy answer.

Mr. Speaker: How about a fancy supplementary?

Mr. Cousens: This is not a happy Christmas present for the pharmacists of Ontario, with all due respect. Twice a year I ask a simple question and we get a long answer and it turns out to be worse than I thought it was going to be.

The pharmacists in Ontario, who are now so totally controlled by government legislation, expect they are going to get their little catalogue two times a year, and it is an important catalogue because it gives them their prices. They get it in January and they get it in July. The one that was supposed to be ready for January was supposed to be printed by December 16, 1987. Now we are about to hear the minister say, as she just said, “There are some problems.”

The manufacturers submitted to the minister back in September the prices they were going to be charging. Now, what happens? The pharmacists in January must deny the fact. They must continue to charge what they did --

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Cousens: I am leading up to it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that, and you have had --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have had 60 seconds to lead up to it. Would you place the question now?

Mr. Cousens: I really look forward to asking the question. I would love to get an answer.

What does the minister propose to do to compensate the pharmacists for the fact that they have to charge the old price on January 1 and will not be getting the new money until she comes out with her new formulary?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I will be reviewing the information that the ministry has received. For the member and for pharmacists who are concerned about this -- and I understand the position they are in -- the current formulary will remain in effect until the new formulary is ready, and I am hopeful that will be early in the new year.

In the meantime, pharmacists can submit for actual acquisition cost if that cost is greater than the formulary in effect and special authorizations are available for drugs which are not listed in the formulary. Let me state again that I have some concerns about the accuracy and completeness of information that the ministry has received. I will be reviewing that and hope that the ministry will be able to release the new formulary early in the new year.

TRIVIA GAME

Mr. Faubert: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, the minister responsible for race relations and for the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

As reported in the Toronto press, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations is outraged by an adult trivia game being sold in Toronto stores, which the alliance states fosters racism and sexism. The alliance reports, and I quote its president, Dr. Wilson Head: “The game depicts blacks as lazy people who steal, Portuguese people as janitors, Jews as cheap and obsessed with money and Jewish women as sexually boring, Poles as stupid and Chinese as unable to speak English.”

This game, called Adultrivia II, Joker’s Edition, is manufactured by Trivial Development Corp. in Roselle, Illinois, and not only teaches and reinforces bigotry, stereotyping and racism, but it is also offensive. It is offensive to the multicultural fabric of Toronto and the entire province.

Has the Ontario Human Rights Commission been given the opportunity to examine this game, and can the minister advise the House of the commission’s opinion on the game’s contents and material?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I think it is fair to say that this is a very offensive game. I think all of us, if we looked at it, would find it irresponsible and not in keeping at all with the tone that we want in Ontario.

The game first came to our attention about 10 months ago, and we persuaded the manufacturers, we thought at that time, to remove it from the shelves, which they did do. We thought the game was gone. We are very disappointed to see it reappear now, and the race relations directorate has taken action to see that it is removed once again. We agree with the member that it is offensive. I think all of us would find it offensive. We took action 10 months ago that we thought removed the game from the shelves. We are very disappointed to see it reappear, and we are taking action now to address it.

Mr. Faubert: Could the minister advise the House specifically what actions were taken? If action was taken 10 months ago and it has not had effect, what further actions are being contemplated by the commission?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: We will deal in the three areas. We will deal with those who are retailing it, because I think it is irresponsible frankly to retail that particular game; we will deal with the distributor; and we will go back to the manufacturers and suggest that they have not been forthcoming with us. They informed us at that time they would not be reprinting it. They obviously have, based on information I have. We will deal with it on those three fronts, and I am convinced we will have a solution for the House.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Skills development (Mr. Curling) a question concerning the fact that only $75,000 out of $1.2 million budgeted has been directed to native kids for Futures programming on the northern isolated reserves.

I am wondering if the Premier is concerned about the unravelling of his youth employment programs and if I could bring to his attention today and get him to comment on the concerns he might have about what is happening with the much ballyhooed announcement July 27 of the part-time work, part-time study option that was going to come in to improve Futures.

1430

If I were to tell the Premier that we have now phoned 21 offices at community colleges around Ontario to find out how many young people are participating in that program and have located 22 students who are participating, would he tell me whether that fulfils his desires and expectations for that program?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member may be in possession of information that I am personally not aware of. I appreciate his bringing it to my attention and to the attention of the House. There may be mistakes we have made.

There may be ways we can improve it. Certainly, I do not accept that just because a program comes forward, it is going to live the way it is for ever. If we can change it and make it more flexible, pertaining more directly to the needs of our young people, then obviously we should be doing this.

When Futures came in, it was an era of particularly high unemployment among young people. That has lessened quite substantially and has put different pressure on the system, but we need the honourable member’s advice in constantly upgrading these programs and making them more relevant to the needs in the sense of a changing student body.

I cannot confirm and I certainly do not deny the figures that the honourable member mentions, but I think they would say to me that they are cause for review from our point of view. If we can do it better, then we should do it better.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would bring to the attention of the Premier that in Ottawa no students at all are participating. In Sudbury, no students are participating. In the seven offices that work out of Timmins, there are no students participating. In London, a major success area, eight students are participating in the whole of London, Ontario.

I wonder if the Premier has given any thought in terms of concerns he might have around the competency of the minister to be able to handle this ministry. If the Premier looks at the problems he has with Transitions, the problems he has with the statistical juggling of successes out of Futures, the problems I have raised about natives not being served in the fashion they should be and now these latest figures in terms of the part-time work, part-time study option, does the Premier still have confidence in his minister?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to the question is yes, I do. There is no question about that.

Mr. Laughren: Why?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I remember. I read the same article that he was quoting a week or so ago and I respect his opinion in that regard. I remember an article a year ago calling Futures a stunning success.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It was quoting the minister.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No, it was not. It was probably quoting some of the same people. That is maybe as valid as quoting the member on the other side saying it is a stunning failure.

I say with great respect to my honourable friend that when he raises points of substance in the House, as he has, I take those seriously. I value his contribution. If we can improve it, then we will try.

INDUSTRIAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling). Can the Premier please enlighten this House as to what specific programs the government has with respect to dealing with the issues of plant closures in general, most notably, for example, the Firestone plant in Hamilton? Or, as the Premier and some of his ministers keep stating in this House that we are going to be having some layoffs as a result of a free trade agreement, what specific strategies does the Premier have in place or is he planning to put in place to address plant closures in Ontario? Or does the Premier believe this is entirely a federal matter?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me just say with respect to the Firestone question that, as the member knows, the ministry was and has been involved for a long time. Talks are ongoing, and we are still hopeful that a sale can be organized. It will be to everybody’s benefit, so it is not as if these things go on without our participation.

Before I arrived in the House this afternoon, there was an announcement with respect to the industrial restructuring commission. We think that is an important initiative. We believe that with or without a trade agreement, and probably accelerated with a trade agreement -- at least the one that we have in front of us -- there will be inevitable restructuring in our economy and there will be even more and other plant closures and rationalizations of some considerable worry to us .

What we want to do is work with industry. I will give the member a perfect example. A couple of days ago, the Woodbridge, Reed report was tabled in this House with respect to the forestry industry. It had some pretty tough things to say about the forestry industry. One of the things it said was that plant was substantially outdated.

One of the things we want to do is to work with that industry to make sure that in all aspects of the Ontario economy we are world-class competitors, that we are making the investments in technology and people to deal with the problems of the future. That is one of the things that the industrial restructuring commissioner will be doing, not only in that industry but others as well.

Mr. Jackson: It strikes me and probably strikes this House oddly that the Premier is prepared to sit down and talk with the federal government when the Firestone plant shuts down, but he is unwilling or unable to sit down and talk in a meaningful way with the government on the free trade agreement, let alone understand its detailed impact on our province.

My first question to the Premier was with respect to which programs he was doing and whether he felt it was his responsibility. During estimates of the Ministry of Skills Development two weeks ago, I asked the minister the same question on the issue of plant closures and he indicated that “the federal people will have to address these concerns.” He felt there was no role here in Ontario for the Ministry of Skills Development, when asked the same question I just asked the Premier.

In the first week of August, the first week of the campaign, the Premier told the Firestone workers that he had a Transitions program in place with a financial support mechanism so they would have income.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Jackson: He has announced his Transitions program of $1.7 million and there are only 25 people as of two weeks ago on the program.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that is most helpful. The Premier knows full well that Ontario is going to experience some plant closures. When is he going to come out with specific programs to ensure income support and training, to ensure that workers, especially older workers, are provided with transitions to alternative employment in this province, instead of waiting for a restructuring commissioner?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend’s personal difficulty in putting that question is in many ways symbolic of the difficulty his party is in. Here it is, standing up, championing a free trade agreement and then talking about all the layoffs that are going to ensue as a result thereof and saying we should do something about it.

Mr. Brandt: That has got nothing to do with it, absolutely nothing to do with it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Look at the difficulty. Here they are. Would you, Mr. Speaker, not think it is reasonable --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have exercised the members opposite.

Would you not think it is reasonable, Mr. Speaker, and I appeal to you as a reasonable man presiding over this chamber, that if some individual through one stroke of the pen, legislative or otherwise, and I refer in this particular case to the Prime Minister, was going to wipe out potentially thousands of jobs across this country --

Mr. Brandt: The pen hasn’t been stroked yet.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, on January 2, it may well be. Would you not think, Mr. Speaker, it would be reasonable to ask that gentleman and his government what they had in mind for the people whose jobs they were going to take away? Would that not be reasonable?

You see what happened. Mr. Bouchard said 500,000 people would lose their jobs as a result of the free trade agreement. Mr. Mulroney said he was going to be very generous and help everybody with a transitions program. Mr. Wilson said the next day, “We do not have any money for that and we are not going to do anything.” Who do you believe, Mr. Wilson or the Prime Minister? Obviously, they are saying very different things.

Now the Prime Minister has appointed M. Jean de Grandpré to head up an adjustment group, that is going to go and look at various things across the country, presumably. I am not aware of any new budget and so I say to you, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. The Conservatives cannot stand up in this House and champion the cause of free trade and, on the other hand, not take responsibility for the people they are prepared to throw out of work in this province.

ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH BRAIN INJURIES

Mr. Morin: I would like to address my question to the Minister of Health. I understand the minister announced that a special treatment centre for individuals with acquired brain damage will be established at Chedoke-McMaster Hospital in Hamilton.

A number of families in my constituency have faced the tragedy of brain injury. The initial injury itself is traumatic for the family, but in addition, services have not been available to provide follow-up care. Will the new treatment centre in Hamilton benefit brain-injured victims in Ottawa who require rehabilitation programs?

1440

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to thank the member for his question and acknowledge the role he has played in representing so well his constituents. He has mentioned this to me on a number of occasions and made me very aware of the needs of the brain-injured and the insufficiency of the programs that existed in Ontario for some time.

The centre I announced last Friday at Chedoke-McMaster Hospital is the first of its kind in Ontario. It will serve as a provincial resource. It is based on the recommendations of the Acquired Brain Damage Committee. I believe it will go a long way to meeting the needs of his constituents. Chedoke will provide initial assessment and support to families in the communities when the individuals are ready to return to their community.

Mr. Morin: The number of brain injuries continues to grow. Will this centre be sufficient to meet the needs?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The centre, as I said, will provide treatment for those with most urgent needs in the province and those with very complex needs. It should be noted that this is not an acute care facility but rather a slow-stream rehabilitation program to assist those, and it represents the initial phase.

My ministry will be working with the Ministry of Community and Social Services and my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) to ensure that we have a network of services across the province.

INCOME TAX

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the government House leader once removed, the present Treasurer of the province. The Treasurer is always saying how much concern he has for people who are living on low incomes in Ontario but I should remind the Treasurer that as long as he only expresses concern and does not back it up with any action, those expressions of concern are really an insult to the working poor in the province, if not hypocritical.

Can I ask the minister, two days before Christmas, will he make an assurance that the working poor in Ontario who are at the poverty level will not have to pay any provincial income tax after the next Ontario budget?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member is certainly to be congratulated for returning to this subject time and time again. I know he likes to get into the debate from time to time, and the fact that this is the only subject he is confident with is his problem, not mine, I guess.

The honourable member would know that in each budget I brought forward we have expanded the Ontario tax reduction program, removing more and more of the low-income people, including the working poor, from the tax rolls.

We have also -- and, in my view, we have done it in a very constructive way -- improved our Ontario health insurance plan premium program so that many people are totally exempt, many more than before we took office. We have reduced the premiums for a large number of people as well.

These two programs have worked hand in hand to return some of the taxing pressures to the upper end of the taxing stream. At the same time, the honourable member will recall, we have placed a three per cent surtax on incomes over $50,000, including his own.

Mr. Laughren: I will ignore the gratuitous insult of the former House leader of the government party.

Since the Treasurer said no, in that in the next five years under federal tax reform the revenues of Ontario will go up around $600 million, by the Treasurer’s own figures, as I recall, and in that as well if he were to impose a minimum corporate income tax in Ontario that alone would raise about $300 million, could the Treasurer tell us, since removing everyone at the poverty level from the tax rolls in Ontario would cost approximately $100 million, why he cannot trade off one of those with the other, bring in a minimum corporate income tax and at the same time remove all the working poor from the tax rolls of Ontario? He would still be money ahead.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member knows that we have a capital tax in the province, which means that every corporation pays a tax on its paid-up capital whether or not it makes a profit. In many respects, this serves as a minimum tax. It is true that ordinary companies, often family companies with very small proportions and low capital, pay only $50 or $100, depending on whether they are in active operation or not; but many companies which do not have corporation tax to pay because of their commitment to expanding their services and the machinery they have and job opportunities, have their corporation income tax reduced under legislation which is designed to stimulate this sort of economic expansion.

We do have a minimum tax through our capital tax that we think is quite effective and, unlike the federal tax, it is not refundable.

MEAT PROCESSORS

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the one from Huron, not this one. Is the minister aware of companies known as Royal Dressed Meats of Guelph and Royal Consolidated Meats of Kitchener, and their financial track records of late?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I always have difficulty ascertaining who is the real Tory Agriculture and Food critic, since two were appointed, the other being the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean). I am always wondering when the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry gets up to ask a question, has he really consulted with the real agriculture critic, the member for Simcoe East?

Mr. Speaker: Response?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Knowing that the member for Simcoe East does not support the remarks of the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) on free trade --

Mr. Harris: Justifiably, I might add.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: -- and the fact that we have to have 50-cent turkeys in this province, which would flush our turkey growers down the drain, I am wondering --

Mr. Cousens: Talk about turkeys.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The answer to the question is yes.

Mr. Speaker: Well, we finally got to it.

Mr. Villeneuve: These companies’ principal shareholders are Angie Ferraro, John Ferraro, D. Ferraro, among others. They have cost the financial protection fund of our province some $750,000 this year, as well as costing farmers and drovers in Ontario and farmers and drovers in Saskatchewan and Alberta a lot of money. Will the minister ensure that these people no longer are in the meat processing business here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: After reviewing the entire situation, if indeed it appears that they are conducting business in a very unbusinesslike manner, then I will take the necessary steps, but to stand up in this House and say that I am going to do away with this processor and I am going to do away with that processor and some other processor, then the producers are going to come to me and ask who is left to buy our product.

Let me take into consideration all the facts before I give the member a definite answer on that.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Callahan: It being the season to be jolly, I have a question of the Minister of Health. I ran in 1977, 1981, 1985 and 1987, and I ran specifically for one purpose, because the Conservative government of the day and the then Conservative member of my riding were unable to fulfil a very necessary promise to my riding of a hospital.

Mr. Jackson: Put him in cabinet. Put him out of his misery.

Mr. Brandt: Are you speaking about the former Premier?

Mr. Callahan: That is correct. Peel-Dufferin county, as a result of a decision of the Peel District Health Council, has apparently approved the establishment of a hospital north of our area. I would like to ask the Minister of Health, does this decision by the Peel District Health Council in any way, shape or form, affect the object that I ran for through all those years?’

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me acknowledge how tenacious the member for Brampton has been in advocating on behalf of his constituents, and acknowledge also his colleague the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland), I believe, who has mentioned this to me as well.

I am very concerned about how we do our planning within this province. I believe we have to look at the needs of communities and make sure they have the opportunity to participate in assessing the future.

The member already knows the extensive program that was announced by this government of some $850 million in capital expansion. I am pleased to have his advice and look forward to discussing this matter with him further as we carefully review and respond to the needs of the people of his constituency

1450

NURSING HOME BEDS

Mr. Swart: I would like to put my question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. He will recall that I wrote to him a month or so ago urging him to approve the conversion of 60 unoccupied beds in Niagara regional seniors’ homes to extended care beds. He will also recall that he replied to me and to Niagara region that he would not give such approval.

He knows those homes already have the infrastructure to provide extended care, as they are already doing to many residents. He also knows there is a waiting list of over 250 people in the Niagara region for extended care beds. Does he not think it is rather silly to have 60 beds empty in those regional homes while at the same time there is an ongoing massive backup of people trying to get into active treatment beds in the hospital which are occupied by extended care and chronic care patients?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware of the fact that several years ago the people in the Niagara region were asked to convey to the government their proposals for the best allocation of extended care beds in their region. Their proposals came to us. They indicated the need for a new home for the aged in the Fort Erie area and another new home for the aged in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Both those requests were acceded to. That was the specific design of the people and the governments, the municipalities of that community. I think this government is being responsible when it listens to the people in that way.

Mr. Swart: I am glad to hear the minister say that he is responsive in this regard when he gets the request. I might remind him that 30 of those unoccupied beds are at Sunset Haven regional home in Welland.

Is he not aware that his own government’s Niagara district health council called on his Ministry of Health just over a month ago to allocate 75 new chronic care beds at the Welland County General Hospital? That call was made because of the backup of people in active treatment beds. Does he not think it makes sense to meet this crisis, and it is a crisis, by first using those 30 beds in Welland, beds which are already there and could be put into service with, as his Premier (Mr. Peterson) would say, a simple stroke of his pen?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member is perhaps already also aware of the fact that as part of this overall program for the Niagara area existing homes like Sunset Haven would be renovated and would be downsized, not unsized.

The member would also be aware of the fact that in the same general area there is also a request for extended care beds for the French-speaking community. That is also being attended to. There are still a few more details to be worked out, but a significant contribution on behalf of my ministry and on behalf of the Ministry of Housing has already been indicated.

I would say, compared to many other places in this province, that the people in the Niagara area are being well looked after.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Sterling: I see the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has left now, but I would like to extend to him a happy holiday season from my family. I certainly appreciate having next week off and time to spend with them.

I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I was walking over towards the ministerial suites in the Hearst Block the other day and I noticed a large poster, which said that the small business advocacy section works on behalf of small business. One of the things it says in that advertisement is that it helps small business with workers’ compensation problems.

Can the minister tell me, in view of the fact that 80 per cent of small businesses have had no claims in the last two years yet have had an increase of premium from 20 per cent to 25 per cent, what has the small business advocacy section done for small business? Has it done anything?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member asked this question in a different form once before and I have to give him the same answer. We are very concerned about the whole issue and how it impacts on small business. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) is looking at it. We have already seen the report of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and its concerns and we are addressing them.

PETITIONS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the Liberal Party misled the people of Ontario in the recent election campaign by promising to give leadership that works and to continue the reform agenda initiated by the New Democratic Party in 1985, and

“Whereas the Liberal Party misled the people of Ontario into believing that they could use their mandate to stop the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, and

“Whereas the Liberal Party misled the people of Ontario into believing that they could reform elementary education by budgeting $300 million this year to reduce class size, and

“Whereas the Liberal Party misled the people into believing that they would guarantee lower auto insurance rates, and

“Whereas the Liberal Party misled the people into believing that they would reduce Ontario’s dependency on nuclear power and make Ontario Hydro more accountable to the Ontario Legislature, and

“Whereas the Liberal Party misled the people into believing that they would crack down on industrial polluters, and

“Whereas the Liberal Party misled the people into believing that they would provide over 100,000 rental units to meet the housing crisis, and

“Whereas the Liberal Party misled the people into believing that they would take action to create jobs and diversify the economy of northern Ontario, and

“Whereas, instead of leadership that works we have instead the complete failure of the Peterson government to lead the province, as shown by the abject retreat from their commitment to stop free trade culminating in its wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed resolution that is rendered useless by sucker clauses; and as shown by its betrayal of education reforms by providing only 20 per cent of the promised $300 million this year; as shown by kowtowing to the nuclear establishment; as shown by its actual reduction of housing programs in the face of a serious housing shortage; and as shown by the Treasurer’s endorsement of the auto insurance industry’s continual gouging of Ontario consumers, and

“Whereas, instead of leadership that is working, we have store employees working this Sunday, and

“Whereas instead of leadership that is working, we have a government House leader who cannot conduct the business of the House in an orderly fashion, and instead of leadership that is working, we have a government House leader who is flaunting his majority rather than respecting the rights of the minority, and instead of leadership that is working, we have a government that has failed to pass even one piece of legislation this session,

“Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario to dissolve this House and allow the Liberal Party to run under its true colours, replacing red with pale blue so that they can seek a mandate that more honestly reflects its desire to preserve the status quo and which will allow them to endorse free trade, reduce education spending, increase our dependency on nuclear power and require this House to sit on Sundays.”

Mr. Speaker: First, I would like to remind all members that when they present petitions, I have suggested on many occasions that they should leave out the “whereases” and put in the “therefore.” Second, I would also remind members, for the future, that they are responsible for the petition by signing the petition; therefore, the member is really using those words. I would remind all members to be very careful with the wording in the future.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I agree that if we want to cut down our time used for petitions we can use the “therefore” section only, but there is nothing in the rules that prohibits us from reading the entire petition.

Mr. Speaker: I am not here to debate with the honourable member, I am here to try to uphold the traditions of this House and parliament in general, and therefore I am stating the traditions.

1500

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

“We, the employees of the Canadian Tire in Cornwall, are greatly opposed to Sunday openings. This would seriously affect our family lives and our religious obligations. We feel that we do not provide essential services of a life-saving nature as do some stores, i.e., drug stores, therefore stores such as Canadian Tire should not be permitted to stay open.”

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that when the House adjourns today, it stand adjourned until Monday, December 28, 1987.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I might add parenthetically that, by consent, we have agreed to adjourn at five o’clock this afternoon.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to speak to this motion, if I might, because it is a procedural motion which is in order to address. It allows me a chance to talk about why we are doing this and why it is necessary for us to consider this option, as a parliament, for the first time in the years I have been here and, I am sure, the first time that anybody who is sitting in this House has had a requirement to do. I am getting a shake of the head from a long-time member who recognizes that this might have happened at some time. I stand to be corrected by the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty), because he has been here much longer than I.

I want to say, though, that in my view the only reason a House should sit is if it has important business to do at this time of the year and that otherwise we should spend our time with our families and allow the people who work in this assembly to spend their time with their families, whether they be the clerks of the House, members of the press gallery, translators, kitchen help downstairs or whoever it is we are now going to abuse, essentially, because for reasons of a procedural wrangle, in my view, we have now decided that it is necessary to sit in the week between Christmas and New Year’s.

It seems to me -- I know it is not right to impute motive, and I am not trying to do that; I am suggesting -- what we have here is a government which is trying to exercise its will. It is trying to basically show the opposition that, with its 95 members, it has absolute control over the House and it has the right to do as it chooses.

As a result, we are in the preposterous position of having a committee struck to deal with the question of free trade in detail. We have the government sending off a resolution, which is now stated as government policy and is therefore, one presumes, unamendable by members of this House and by the committee. They are sending that resolution not only to the Prime Minister of our land but also to the American ambassador, indicating that this is the policy of this House. Although the Congress of the United States has decided that it is not going to adhere to a strict January 2 deadline, this government has decided, for one reason or another -- and God knows what the real reason is behind it -- that we as a Legislature, must pass this selfsame resolution, unamended, by January 2, and that is why we are all being kept here.

It strikes me that this is not good reasoning. It is the kind of dangerous decision by a government House leader that can lead to acrimony of a very deep-seated nature. It is a very emotional time of the year in general for people, who want to be with their families, spread as they are across the province, and who do not get much time to be with them. It is not the kind of thing that is going to win friends in terms of how this House operates.

There are many members here who were not here during the days of minority government. I will just tell them that if they should look at what we accomplished in terms of co-operation between the parties in the first session of minority government in comparison with what we have done this fall, we have not one bill passed in this Legislature this fall. The members really have to ask themselves why that has taken place

What the government is setting up, and why I really want to question the reason for having this motion for sitting next week at all, is the possibility of structurally confining the actions of this Legislature to minimalist action. If they want to push this through at this point, when there seems to be no real reason to do so, they are basically going to say to us as opposition, “We can trample on you with our 95 any time we want, and that is the lesson we are trying to teach you here.” As a member elected by my constituency to reflect the views which my party and I laid out to it during the election, I will not stand for that.

I believe I have a right to speak. I believe I have a right to represent my views. Just because there are 95 members of the government in this House, it does not give them a right to start to change the way this place works to suit their convenience, which is essentially what is happening.

Just yesterday this party, which feels slightly caught in the middle of the debate taking place between the government and the Conservative Party, tried to provide a way out of the impasse between the desire of a minority to have adequate debate and a government to meet its own timetable.

Mr. Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was under the impression that in this House one is not allowed either to make interjections from somewhere other than one’s own seat or to speak from somewhere other then one’s own seat. I point out that the honourable member is speaking from the microphone of the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman).

Mr. Laughren: Don’t be so silly.

Mr. Mahoney: I just noticed it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point was made. I noticed it myself. I know the member will continue from his own seat.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a tendency to sway back and forward as I speak, as members will notice. Now and then I infringe on the member for Algoma’s space.

Mr. Harris: But never on the issues. He never strays on the issues.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: But never on the issues. That is true.

Mr. Runciman: He is a real swinger.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I still have my moustache and so does the member at this point. I think it is important, if we are going to maintain this kind of jocular capacity to interact as members, that members understand the gravity of what is now beginning here in terms of the government’s position and intractability on this matter. I was not in the House in the days of Mr. Winkler -- he was Conservative House leader, as I recall -- but members here were and understand the kind of confrontational attitude that developed in the House during those days of the Tory majority. That is not always the way things have operated in majorities, and it is not required performance for governments to become intractable. I would remind the House leader of that.

As I was starting to say before the member noted that I had swayed from my seat, we, as a party, moved an amendment to the government motion yesterday. We proposed it, that is, behind the scenes, as is done in this House between the House leaders, to try to find some means of getting this government to stop being so intractable on an issue where it did not require us to be here for January 2 at all, but only because it wills us to be here, as it decided that should be the case.

Unfortunately, the government chose to ignore that reference of the entire resolution, which it has moved, to the committee for its consideration, therefore allowing us to get the other business of the House done in the meantime.

From this side, I have no idea why that happened. I ask the members on the government side to think about how we react to this. From our perspective, we can only see this as bullying. This is the government’s desire to have its will forced on us. There is no requirement for it to have this resolution passed before January 2, except its desire to have it so done. It has now stated firmly through the Premier in letters that this is government policy and, therefore, it is not going to be amended. It has 95 seats in this House -- 94 and counting -- with which, when the vote is taken, it can ram this thing through.

The government has the capacity to force this through when the vote is taken, but it does not have the capacity, under our orders, to determine precisely when that moment shall be, because we, as a minority in the House, have a right to express our dissidence. What it is doing is expressing a government will, which it has already done, nationally and internationally now. So it is done.

1510

As vascillating as that particular resolution is on the matter of free trade, the government has taken that position and enunciated it as government policy. Now it is saying to us, as the opposition, that we must sit here over the Christmas period, that the people in this Legislature must sit here over the Christmas period, away from their families, because it for some obstreperous reason wishes to have a vote taken on this prior to January 2.

That is all that is happening. It does not need a vote. There is nothing that requires a vote for it to make its government statement, which it has already done. There is no reason for it to emasculate, if I can use a sexist term, a committee the way it is doing by basically saying this is the position and whatever the committee finds out means nothing. There is no reason for having that committee at all if the government is only going to make declarations by fiat and then demand that by a certain time this be passed by this House in compliance with its grandiose designs.

I would suggest that the government House leader should think seriously before he asks us to agree to this motion and might consider instead, as a minimum -- because I know he is so intractable on this matter that he is going to require us to be back some time next week -- that he take into consideration a little bit more the needs of the families of members and the families of people working in this Legislature and accept the following amendment, which I will now move.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. R. F. Johnston moves that the motion be amended by striking out the date “Monday, December 28” and replacing it with “Tuesday, December 29, 1987.”

I do not want to break your train of thought. When the original motion was put, I believe the government House leader did state there was some consensus that this House complete its work today at five o’clock. I omitted to ask if there was unanimous consent for that.

Hon. Mr. Conway: That was the view this afternoon, but I have heard and seen things in the last five or 10 minutes which make me really wonder whether that is the case, so l am really going to need some guidance.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: There was a discussion in the House leaders’ meeting this morning and a request from our party that some of us who are from out of town do not have the options of flights that are available to larger cities, like those who have to travel back to Ottawa, and there was an agreement that we would adjourn at five o’clock. There were no conditions placed on that. We are discussing a motion, and I do not understand what the government House leader is talking about. As to whether we adjourn at five, we will certainly consent to that, and I know the Conservative Party expressed support of that. Is the government going to consent or not?

Mr. Cousens: If I can speak for our House leader, it has certainly been the agreement from our side that we would retire at five o’clock this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I think I have a very clear memory of what transpired at our meeting earlier this afternoon. What concerns me, quite frankly, for my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), is that I have seen reports of that meeting in the name of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) which are at complete variance with other aspects of that meeting as I remember it.

We had a discussion about next week’s sitting. This debate at the present moment is interesting and again spirited. Of course, I want to accord with the understanding I thought we had for a five o’clock adjournment -- and that is still my view, I want to make it very clear -- but I repeat, I am hearing and seeing things in these last five or 10 minutes which really make me wonder about the meeting we had earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to create any disturbance. However, I am sure all members are aware of the standing orders. Therefore, this House sits until six o’clock unless there is general agreement, unanimous agreement or a motion put that we close earlier. I just wanted some clarification because I felt the House could not adjourn without a motion or unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: We have an amendment placed by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). The member may wish to make some comments on the amendment.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Briefly, I realize that we are going to have to have the act played out the way the government has demanded it. There is nothing we can do as an opposition, particularly, to change that. But I do think that by altering the amount of time that is available, we can at least allow families to have that Monday off, those people who support us so efficiently in this Legislative Building, and our own families, so that we can spend that day with them and then return on the Tuesday to deal with the business, if that is what the government insists. That is why I have moved the motion.

Mr. Laughren: I rise in support of the amendment to the government motion by my colleague the member for Scarborough West. It is truly strange that we are debating this particular motion and the amendment by my colleague, given the overwhelming wish of the government, as I gathered from chatting it up in the corridors with Liberal back-benchers and the odd cabinet minister, that the one wish they had as we started this new government was that they not be seen to be arrogant, complacent and exercising their power in the way the Tories did, as I recall, back in 1971 and again in 1981.

I think the expressions by the back-benchers and the cabinet ministers were sincere. At the same time, we witness the spectacle of the government House leader and the government whip going around and bolstering up the morale of all the Liberal back-benchers, saying: “Look, gang, we have to stay here. Do not forget now, we are all in this together. It is not our fault. It is those dastardly Tories who are doing this to us.”

It is not the dastardly Tories who are doing it to them. They are doing it to themselves. That is what is happening. Nobody else is doing this to them. We are not.

Mr. Mahoney: Feels good so far.

Mr. Laughren: I am sure it does. The exercise of power always feels nice to those who are exercising it. Someone once said that power corrupts and that absolute power is even better. When I look across the way, that is what I think of. The government does not have absolute power, but with 95 members out of 130, it is pretty close to it.

Mr. Mahoney: If we wanted, we would go home.

Mr. Laughren: No. What the government really wants is to deny the opposition its traditional rights in this assembly. That is really what it is coming down to.

Let me take members back a little bit, and I am sure my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside will correct me, as will the member for Nipissing.

At a House leaders’ meeting on a Thursday, the government House leader indicated to the other two House leaders that for the business of the next week there would be a motion to refer the free trade question to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, period. That was it. It is in the minutes. If back-benchers have not seen the minutes of that House leaders’ meeting they should come over and we will give them to them. They may not have been distributed to the members by their own front bench.

That is all that was done. The following Monday night -- correct me if I am wrong here -- there was a House leaders’ dinner, where they are supposed to talk things over and perhaps even make any kind of amends for past slights. It is a tradition that at Christmas time the House leaders go out and have dinner, talk some business and perhaps get to know each other even better. At that meeting, the government House leader distributed the substantive motion that condemned free trade.

There was no consultation with the House leaders. What does he think we are here for? Why have we set up a structure here so that the two opposition parties have House leaders and whips? Because we believe very strongly that there must be consultation among the three parties. There was none.

It was laid on the two opposition parties. The government not only wants the referral, it says, “We insist on having this substantive motion that condemns free trade.” How did the government House leader think the Tories would react to that? They are in favour of free trade. Why in the world would they ever support a condemning motion from this assembly? Why would they do that?

I respect the position the Tories have taken on this. I respect the way they have dug in their heels and continued this debate. If I was in their position, I would do the same thing, only not in as civilized a way.

Mr. South: We are now testing their sincerity.

Mr. Laughren: The members of the Liberal caucus may think that the opposition is not being sincere, that there is some kind of game going on. They should ask themselves why their government House leader had to have that substantive motion when the matter was being referred out to committee. They should ask, why would their government House leader demand the substantive motion condemning free trade if he was not just trying to stick it in the ear of the opposition? That is all he was trying to do.

I do not know -- perhaps somebody else can clarify it for me -- whether this gem of an idea came from the fertile mind of the government House leader or whether it came from other fertile minds in the environs, perhaps elected, perhaps not elected, but it was the wrong thing to do.

The stage was set when the government tried to impose a substantive motion on the other two parties. Then you would think: “OK, those things happen. Why could we not work out a compromise?” My colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside proposed a very reasonable amendment. The House leader for the Conservative Party, the member for Nipissing, had three suggestions as recently as yesterday. He proposed three things. I am sure the member for Nipissing would not be offended if I read into the record the three suggestions he had.

Mr. Harris: I wish you would. I can’t find my copy.

Mr. Laughren: OK. This is what the member for Nipissing proposed to the government House leader. “We would ask that you consider the following: One, adjourn the debate on the government resolution without a vote,” the substantive motion. “Two, refer the matter to the committee on finance and economic affairs, as was originally agreed to.” Do not forget that. That was originally agreed to. “Three, proceed with the balance of business which we agreed to at the House leaders’ meeting of December 10. I believe this would allow the House to conclude the business which you indicated was necessary before the end of December.”

That surely is not an opposition that is digging in and playing games and posturing. It is an opposition that wants to make the system work too.

The whole thing is ridiculous. The member for Windsor-Riverside proposed an amendment as well. This is the wording of the amendment. “However, as it is the Legislative Assembly’s determination to permit the widest possible consultation on an issue of this importance to Canada, and as it is the prerogative of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to examine the proposed agreement in detail and to seek representations from the people of Ontario concerning its impact on the economy of the province, therefore sessional paper 108 and this resolution are referred to the standing committee on finance for report to the assembly.”

If I could cut through some of the legalism of that proposal, what it is really saying is to send both the substantive motion and the referral out to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. What in the world is wrong with that? It is not even saying we are so offended by the substantive motion, which condemns free trade, that we do not even want that sent out. It is saying: “It is there. Send it out to the standing committee on economic affairs.”

The government House leader is telling us, I guess, that both the New Democratic Party House leader’s proposals and the proposals of the member for Nipissing, the Tory House leader, are unacceptable; that there is no middle ground, only their ground.

I want to tell the Liberal back-benchers who are facing the next four years that they are going to have a much tougher time in 1991 than they had in 1987. The one thing -- l do not normally give friendly advice to government -- l would remind them of is that the albatross that will be most heavy to carry around their necks will be arrogance and incompetence.

Let me remind them that if they are perceived out there, all across Ontario, as being arrogant with their 95 seats and as being incompetent in the running of this assembly, it will not stand them well. They will have a lot to answer for and they will not have been responsible for any of it -- the front bench will have been -- but they will pay the price; they are the ones who will pay the price, not the front bench.

Combine arrogance and incompetence and you have a deadly mix for any political party. That is the direction in which they are heading. Arrogance of power, imposing their will on the opposition, refusal to negotiate and the incompetence of the way in which it was done; completely incompetent.

I do not really care whether it was the House leaders who did it or the Premier’s office that insisted on it, the result is the same. The Liberals got themselves into a mess and they will not back down. They do not want to blink first. It is high noon in the Ontario Legislature. They are all so macho, are they not?

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: That is what I like to hear. I like to hear the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) telling us to get down off the box. I like to hear the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) standing in his place and saying, “You may not like it, but we have 95 seats.” Keep on talking like that.

I would remind the members once again that it will not be the front bench that pays the price, it will be the back bench. That is the way it works in the province of Ontario. This whole thing was completely unnecessary. The government will have accomplished zip. It will have accomplished absolutely nothing.

If the Liberals think for a minute that the Tories are isolated in this fight, they are dead wrong. We support them in what they have done, because they are right to stand up the way they have against this substantive motion. Does it not tell the government something that we are together on this? The Tories, who are opposed to the substance of the motion, support free trade; we are opposed to it and did not think it was strong enough, but here we are together in this battle. Does that not tell the government something?

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: Sure, chalk it up to politics making strange bedfellows. That is fine. Chalk it up to whatever you want, but think about it at the same time.

I expect the member to make the snappy interjection. That is what he is there for. He is there to prop up the front row and support it with his snappy interjections. Not to mention the Minister of Natural Resources, who needs more propping up than most.

l do not want to delay the debate unduly, but I want to tell the government that the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has moved this amendment so that we will come back on Tuesday instead of Monday, because we believe it is total nonsense. The game the government is engaged in is total nonsense. It is going nowhere. We will be here, the Liberals will be here, things will get done, but it is all for naught.

The Liberals should ask themselves what they have accomplished with this stupidity and incompetence. I forgot arrogance, because that is really what it is coming down to. They should ask themselves what they have accomplished. Better still, they should ask the government House leader what all this has accomplished.

Mr. Harris: I understand that I have to speak to both the amendment and the motion at the same time. I believe that is the rule, once both the motion and the amendment have been put before I have an opportunity to speak, so I shall speak to both. Am I incorrect in that assumption?

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the member, who is very familiar with standing orders and rules of debate, that a motion was put. There is now an amendment changing that motion and we are debating the amended motion.

Mr. Harris: I can concur. I gather from your ruling -- and I do seek clarification -- that after the amendment has been dealt with and voted on, I will have the opportunity to rise again and speak to the motion.

Mr. Speaker: That has been the common custom since the beginning of time.

Mr. Harris: I appreciate that clarification, Mr. Speaker. I will try to keep my remarks to the amendment, recognizing that it is amending a motion and that I may have to tie the amendment in.

1530

A lot of what I would like to have said has been put on the record. I know that my colleagues the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and the member for Scarborough West have both addressed their remarks particularly to the back-benchers on the government party. I think it is particularly appropriate today; I do not know if they noticed they were in good attendance.

I do not know if they also noticed that Bill 51, which had a top-notch government priority, did not proceed today, and therefore will not be in effect for next Sunday. I am not exactly sure why, but we heard the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) indicate that it was our fault, the opposition’s fault, that it did not proceed.

They must understand, since no one has explained to them in their caucus meetings how the House works, that we cannot order the business; we can only respond to what has been ordered by the government House leader. There was absolutely no reason why Bill 51 could not have been proceeded with today in fairly short order, and then we could move on to the free trade debate.

I suspect the reason is that while all the staff in this place is here working, the minister responsible for the bill is vacationing in Florida. I suspect that is why we are not proceeding with Bill 51 today to protect the employees on December 27 around this province. It is a little more important for the minister to be in Florida than it is to be here to proceed with the legislation so that it could have been enacted before December 27.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing is inquiring about the whereabouts of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter). He has had to step out for a few moments. He is expected shortly.

Mr. Harris: Thank you very much, but on this occasion I was not; I was referring to the minister responsible for Bill 51, who of course is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), who l suspect is in Florida, unable to move third reading, unable to get the bill passed to protect the employees for next Sunday.

I want to indicate that we will support the amendment that brings this House back next Tuesday. I share in the concern of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that we see no logical reason why this House should be here this week or next week, unless it was to deal with Bill 51 or with interim supply or with these other matters. Those matters we could understand, and for about three meetings of House leaders, we worked very hard and very diligently to plan the business, to limit debate on some, to figure out how long it would take to accommodate the government and to agree as to what we would do and how we would do it so that we could adjourn December 17 yet still meet the government’s time line.

We did that on the Metro Toronto bill. We agreed that we would sit in January in committees, we agreed to come back in February so that could be passed and implemented and we could proceed with elections and the new boundaries in Toronto. We agreed on conflict of interest, which the minister, for some reason or other, thinks is very important. I am not sure why; it is a little bit like this one, although we agreed to accommodate in every way we could. As for the conflict of interest bill, as I understand it, the cabinet members and the parliamentary assistants are operating under it now. So it is only the private members of all three parties where there seems to be some urgency, yet it is the private members of all three parties who are not being consulted. Members should ask themselves that as well. We accommodated that bill.

Then we had insurance; they said in the election, “There will be no increase.” Once the election was over, it went up five per cent and we are going to get into regulating insurance rates, really, we feel, totally socializing the whole industry, something we feel very strongly about and we oppose, but we agreed. We said, “Look, we will limit debate, we will let it go to committee, we will guarantee it will pass in February.” So we were very co-operative.

The free trade issue was one where there was going to be one day’s debate on a referral motion to send it to the committee to study. We agreed to that. Everything was going along hunky-dory. There were three or four House leaders’ meetings over a period of three or four weeks. With respect, I believe the House leader of the government party was sincere in the negotiations right up to the point where the Premier said the weekend before last:

“Hey, I am losing here. I am losing this battle. Nobody believes me any more. I said in the election I would stop this deal and now I cannot stop this deal. I have not got this and I cannot do that. The press is fuming against me. I have to do something. Maybe my House leader negotiated in good faith, but I have to do something different. I am sorry, House leader, but stick this resolution to the opposition. I know it was not agreed upon a week, two, three or four weeks ago, but I am having a political problem out there. You must tell my back-benchers that I blew it, but l need you now to try to help me salvage something.”

That is why we are here. I want the members to understand what this is in the resolution. When we finally pass a resolution in the House, we must understand what it means. It means that it need never come back ever again. The government can say, “No, no, we will provide another opportunity to debate.” Do they expect us, if the situation changes three months from now or six months from now, to believe that is what will happen? When this vote takes place, it is finished. Free trade is over and done with in this Legislature if that is what the government with 95 seats wants. We do not order the business.

I started my remarks with that so the members must understand that we will never again have another opportunity to debate free trade. This is it. We are being asked to do it. It is a resolution. But I would like the members to think of what happens with a bill. If a bill comes forward, we have first reading, then we have second reading on a bill, where it is debated. It then goes out to committee if there are any changes, or for study or if any public input required. Then it comes back for third and final reading.

What we have been asked to do here is as if we had the first, second and third reading, all finished, tout fini, that is what the Legislature has done, that is enacted into law, that is it. Now we will send it out to committee to see what the public thinks. Can the government not understand what that does to the opposition parties? Can they not understand why we think they are being arrogant? Can they not understand, given that chronology of events, that if we agree to it we might as well go home for four years?

We were not elected, my friends, to stay at home for four years. That was not our role. When we started out in the campaign, we did not start out to be in opposition, I might say, but that is what happened. That is now our role. That is the role of the New Democratic Party, that is the role of the Conservative Party. I do not think the members ought to be the slightest bit surprised in spite of what the front bench has told them as to why we are here this week and why we will be here next week.

I want to talk specifically about the amendment to the motion to bring us back next week. Say it is Tuesday. The members know we do not agree to coming back next week anyway. We think it does not make sense. We are being forced to debate something without hearing from the cabinet committee, which has not even reported yet. We still have not got all the documentation from some of the ministry studies, yet we are being asked for a final decision.

This amendment specifically says Tuesday. Saturday is Boxing Day. Monday is a statutory holiday for the staff but not for us. Quite frankly, it does not bother me to be here on Monday. I guess when this plays itself out I will be here. It does not bother our members. It bothers our families, but when we go into politics these things happen and they are very understanding or we would not have run in the first place.

1540

But there are another 1,000 or so people who are affected. My understanding is that they have been told by the government: “Whether you have made travel plans, whatever you may have planned for what you thought was going to be your holiday on Monday, forget it. We are going to give you your holiday tomorrow and then you have to work Monday. You are not going to even get double time.” That is what the employees have been told. That is what the security officers have been told.

One would have thought that to work the Boxing Day holiday, which is Monday, December 28, that if there were a really urgent reason why we should be here -- and there is not, there is no logical reason to be here, because this vote is not going to come to a conclusion until some time in January, maybe February, but even if there were -- one would have thought the government would at least have had the decency to say: “There is an emergency. We need the staff here. You have to be here. We need the security staff.” You would have thought they would have followed the normal rules which say, “You will be here and we will pay you double time,” or whatever the rules say; maybe it is double time and a half for that day, but I am not sure.

No. They have been told: “Take off the day before Christmas and be here and work for regular pay next Monday.” I guess the arrogance is creeping down, if you like, into the way this government treats the employees of this chamber as well: “Cancel your holiday plans. Lose your deposit. Lose your refund. Too bad you planned this.”

The precedent has been set now. One cannot even plan for Boxing Day off around this Legislature. If there were an emergency, I tell the members, the employees of this chamber, of this Legislature, who make this place function, in my experience would be the first ones to say: “We’ll help you members. We’ll be there. We’re there through thick or thin. We’re there when you’re silly and stupid.” I am sure they say that in the back rooms; they must, some days. But I know they would be here.

This, having them coming back on Monday, is rubbing it in their faces. Telling them to take tomorrow off, “Tomorrow will be your Boxing Day, not Monday, so we don’t have to pay you double time,” that is taking their faces, when they are already in the mud, and stomping up and down on them. That is the type of arrogance that those of us in the opposition have been subjected to in the last little while.

I think it is important that maybe the front bench, who are not privy to some of the conversations but certainly those who are new here, should understand. I want to associate myself with the comments that were made by the leader of the New Democratic Party today before he left, when he said that it undoubtedly is the worst case of arrogance, of government bullying, that he has ever seen in his legislative career, both in Ottawa and in Ontario.

I can only speak for 1981 forward, and I would not be one who would say there may not have been examples of my own party, when it was governing from 1981 to 1985. I am sure there were. But as the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) pointed out, never in the time he has been either here or in Ottawa have we seen the type of stupidity and arrogance that has been demonstrated around this chamber in the last couple of weeks.

We will support the amendment put forward by the member for Scarborough West.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I very much appreciate the opportunity on this day, December 23, to make some remarks because, among other things, I do not get the opportunity now, outside of reporting on a variety of routine matters, to engage in debate and I really appreciate the opportunity to say some things this afternoon, particularly because I have had the opportunity to listen to the interventions of some of my very good friends here.

I really want to say that I very much appreciate the opportunity to hear my friend the member for Scarborough West, to look at his amendment, to reflect upon the comments made by the member for Nickel Belt and, of course, to carefully assess the words of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris).

It gives me an opportunity on this day to state something of the government’s case. I want to begin by saying that I like to think that, unlike anyone else who has participated in this debate and in this current business, I have had the opportunity to have experienced both sides of this aisle. Not too many months ago, I remember talking at some length with a very distinguished former member of this assembly, Tom Wells, the former government House leader, with whom I engaged in one of these battles back in 1981. So when the members opposite make the case about the need for sensitivity on the government side, I want to say to them that I know whereof and what of they speak.

When I observe and when I feel the activities of the third party, as I have over the last few days,

I have to say to my friends on the government benches that I know to some real degree whose script they are reading. I know whose script they are reading and I know what kind of parliamentary tactic it is in which they are engaged, and I want to say I am more than passingly respectful of that activity.

Just for a moment, I want to reflect upon the developments, as I recall them, of the last few weeks. I will say to my friends on the government bench, I am, of course, in early days -- as the member for Nickel Belt would say -- in my role as government House leader. When the member for Nickel Belt on this day, on the eve of Christmas, invokes the ghost of the former member for Grey South, I have to say to my friend the member for Nickel Belt that is a sting for which there is no equal. He has cut not just to the bone but also to the very marrow.

Mr. Mahoney: To the quick.

Hon. Mr. Conway: To the quick, as the member for Mississauga West parenthetically observes.

But I want to ask my friends in the assembly, what is the government’s view? What is the government House leader’s memory? As I said in an earlier interjection this afternoon, there have been things said and things written this afternoon which disappoint me deeply, which will, I say to my friends the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Nipissing, bring about a very new protocol in the House leaders’ panel.

I am deeply, deeply disappointed about some of what has been written and some of what has been done, but I am a reasonable person and if for no one else’s benefit than for the benefit of my friends, the member for Nickel Belt and the member for Scarborough West, I am going to be reasonable. But I want to state the case, because a lot has been said.

It has, of course, to be said at the outset of any majority parliament that an opposition, as I well remember, will see what it sees, will read what it reads and will feel what it feels and there is nothing within human competence that is going to change its perception and its sensibility. I understand that. There is an important parliamentary dialectic at work and there is a very significant political reality at play. Let me be the first to make that obvious.

But the leader of the government has said repeatedly that the trade question is the most important issue facing this province and this nation in this year of 1987, and we have not at any time disguised that view. We, of course, expected the final text of the free trade agreement from Messrs. Reisman and Mulroney at a much earlier date than Friday, December 11, the date on which it finally arrived. For that and for the timetable that will see the agreement signed by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States, we in the government of Ontario are, of course, not responsible.

1550

It is true that over the course of the meetings that we held in the fall of this year at the House leaders’ panel we talked about getting that final agreement and what we would do with it. It is also true to say that in the course of the early weeks of this fall session, I think there was a relatively fair degree of consensus. Oh, yes, there had been some difficulty. I had been told about certain issues before my arrival on September 29 having to do with some of the more mundane matters about which House leaders deliberate on a weekly and sometimes daily basis, but I well remember in the opening days of this session a variety of calls for emergency debates that were acceded to.

I remember a number of other occasions when very legitimate requests for a variety of things were sought and, in most cases, I think they were acceded to. My memory of that meeting on December 10 is as follows: l lamented the fact that the final agreement was still not in our possession and that the government would not be able to finally decide the case until we had the agreement, long overdue.

I anticipated that there would be either a resolution or a motion that would allow the Legislature the opportunity to debate the question. The leader of the New Democratic Party in the House this afternoon shakes his head disapprovingly. I am not here to recall his memory. I am here to put on the record my memory of what I said and did.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: And distort the facts.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member will obviously regret that remark because it is not in the spirit of Christmas.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is not what happened and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just have to say for the government that on December 10, I regretted that the agreement was not with us and said that we were expecting it shortly -- again, there were no commitments because weeks had passed and previous deadlines had passed that were not met -- and that I expected that the Legislature, which was then planning to adjourn on Thursday December 17, would want to discuss the matter and that we would have a resolution or a motion, the substance of which I did not have -- and I said at that time I did not -- but that would depend on the final agreement.

The final agreement arrived on the following day. Over the weekend, the government carefully looked at that agreement and on Monday, standing in his place in this chamber, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) made a statement in which he said there would be a resolution to be debated in the House later in the week.

I remember, by the way, that on the morning of December 10, the House leader of the New Democratic Party said that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) would be away in Washington on December 13 and that if any debate were to be arranged, it ought not to be done while the Leader of the Opposition was away. I thought that was a perfectly valid request and it was acceded to.

Later on Monday, December 13 when the final text had been reviewed, a resolution was prepared and shared with my friends in the opposition. We then indicated that we would be proceeding with a debate.

I want to just stop at this point and reflect upon what it is we are dealing with here. This is an important issue; very important business. I ask my friend from Halton, or the member for York East (Ms. Hart) or the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), if there is anyone in this chamber or if there is anyone in the province who does not know where the parties stand on this issue.

I do not believe there is. I think it is quite clear where the Peterson government stands with respect to the agreement. I think it is quite clear where the official opposition, the Ontario New Democratic Party, stands with respect to the opposition and, as of last week, it is absolutely clear where the third party stands in respect of this agreement. The emergency motion request that the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) put before this chamber a week or so ago made absolutely clear where the Ontario Tory party stands, so I think I fairly represent that as reality.

Against that landscape, against that backdrop, we have had a very lively debate. We have had a very interesting debate.

Mr. Cousens: Why hasn’t the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) spoken to it? Why hasn’t the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Munro) spoken to it or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter)? Why hasn’t it been released before?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: Why haven’t you tabled all the stuff?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: It is hard to sit and take.

Mr. Campbell: The truth hurts.

Mr. Cousens: No, it does not.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Markham contain himself? I asked earlier if any other members wished to participate. The member did not offer at that time. Would he remain silent, please?

Hon. Mr. Conway: In a conciliatory way, I say to my friend the member for Markham --

Mr. Cousens: Keep them quiet when you are talking, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Markham sits there like Cicero, the accusative case, pointing.

Mr. Cousens: Don’t you start talking about accusing. Come on, you said you were going to table it. It is not there. Don’t hold yourselves up as being saints. You are not.

Hon. Mr. Conway: In the most conciliatory way I can, I want to review very quickly what the research of the last five or six days suggests, because I think we have to look at what kind of debate we have had. We have had an interesting debate.

My research tells me that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology spoke to the resolution. The member for York South, the Leader of the Opposition spoke over two days for something very near to one hour and 45 minutes. The Liberal member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon) spoke for roughly 25 minutes and the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) spoke for a little over half an hour.

I note as well, however, that the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and the member for Markham have spoken in this debate. In the case of the member for Cochrane South, who is not with us today, he spoke over three days for a total of four hours. The member for Markham, who has recently interjected as to why others have not spoken, might find, in part, the answer is that he spoke over two days, for three hours and 25 minutes, as is absolutely his right.

So we have had now some five days of debate, over 11 hours and 55 minutes, in which there has been a rather thorough if not an absolutely complete ventilation of the views of members of the assembly.

I just come back to the point I was making earlier. I think it was my friend from Pembroke via Scarborough, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), who observed earlier that we have to accommodate the opposition. He is absolutely right.

At our meeting earlier today, for example, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) who is, in my view, a pretty reasonable fellow -- I can imagine a couple of his predecessor House leaders with whom it would be somewhat more difficult to deal. The member for Nickel Belt imagines similarly.

Mr. Laughren: I certainly do.

Hon. Mr. Conway: But today at the House leaders’ meeting, the member for Windsor-Riverside said, “Listen, some of us have a long way to go today.” I am wondering if anybody will, in the end, have a longer way to go than I will, driving myself halfway across this province. But I agree with the member for Windsor-Riverside. He put a very interesting and reasonable request. “Can’t we agree,” he said, “to adjourn at five o’clock?” to which I said, after some thought, “Yes.”

We talked about other things. We talked about the sitting next week, and I have to put this on the record. These wonderful men and women who represent 95 electoral districts in Ontario, at our caucus last week when I put it to them, “Well, we may need to sit, because this is important business. The government has a view. The opposition has a view,” said to me, “House leader, after five or six or seven days of debate, with the public positions of the honourable members on all sides known in principle” -- they said to me from Halton to Haldimand and from Kenora to Cornwall -- “what is the problem with a vote?”

1600

I said to them, “Well, the opposition must have its say,” and we agreed. The opposition must have its say. They said to me then, “Well, if they want to sit and debate this question,” someone imagined there might be a filibuster. I said: “No, no, never. A filibuster? The member for Cochrane South filibuster? Never.”

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I share with the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) my difficulty, because my friends say: “The leader of the New Democratic Party, the leader of the Conservative Party, the leader of the government have in principle taken clear positions with respect to the main question which is at issue in government resolution 8. So what is the problem about having a vote?”

After days of debate, why would we, as a Legislature, not want to have a vote, particularly before the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, in accordance with an American deadline, sign the agreement on January 2? I do not have an easy answer, except to say that the honourable members in the opposition want to have their say.

So what about next week, the week of Christmas and New Year’s? The members of our caucus, when canvassed, not universally, but very significantly, said: “Well, this is important. If the members want to debate the question, let us be here next week and let us have a regular week.” That is what they told me. That was their direction.

I want to say to my friends, from our point of view, that is how this matter has developed. But I think it is my responsibility to try to assist in these difficult times, a difficulty I have to tell members I do not accept the full responsibility for. I repeat, there have been things said and things written this afternoon that disappoint me, that offend me and that will lead me to an important new protocol which I think these developments have necessarily led us to.

Mr. Laughren: Will it include consultation?

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) asks about consultation. I think I have been very consultative. I am not perfect, but there have been some difficulties the opposition has experienced and felt and believe me, they will be addressed fully and immediately with respect to certain protocols.

I am doing this as I stand here and I do not have much authority, but I am going to accept and recommend to my colleagues that the amendment by the member for Scarborough West be concurred in. I have to tell my friends in the second and third parties that if they had come to the House leaders’ meeting today and said: “Conway, listen, we know what your gang wants. We know there is a determination on the part of this Liberal government to move forward on this trade question and to send the clearest possible message to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the President of the United States,” if the matter had been raised at the meeting today, I might have had some opportunity to consider the possibility and to have been my usual agreeable self, as I like to think I have been on most of these issues.

One of the things that deeply disappoints me is that there is a release today in the name of the House leader for the third party which purports to capture the spirit of our meeting at 12:53 p.m. this afternoon. I just have to say to the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) that I am deeply and truly disappointed by his press release of today in that connection.

But it is Christmas and we are all honourable members and I like the opposition. I enjoy the opposition. I sometimes imagine that there is no life like it, that really and truly, there is nothing quite like standing there alone in the wind of this place and saying, “On this Gibraltar I will build my case and no man, no woman, no argument no deadline, no nothing is going to move me from this position, because I am an honourable member with a strong and honourable case and I defy that government over there, particularly if it is a big majority government, to be seen to be mowing me down.” I have done it and I know something of the recreational, psychological and spiritual joy it momentarily provides to an honourable member.

I want to say on behalf of the government bench, and in particular in response to the arguments advanced by my sweetly reasonable friends the member for Scarborough West and the member for Nickel Belt -- notwithstanding the fact that the member for Nickel Belt has said in this place today something in my respect that, as I said earlier, cuts not to the bone but to the marrow itself -- that I am going to recommend to my whip and my strongly determined colleagues in caucus that they accept the amendment standing in the name of the member for Scarborough West, if for no other reason than to prove publicly in this wonderful historic place on this happy Christmas eve’s eve, that I like to think it is the reality of my dealings with honourable members in this place privately that I am a very reasonable fellow and notwithstanding --

Mr. Laughren: It could possibly be guilt.

Hon. Mr. Conway: It has nothing to do with guilt, I want to say, because I think there is an important point to be made. The place has got to be made to work and I am going to make it work. The opposition has to understand that if it wishes a debate on a subject about which the government feels strongly, then when it gets what it wishes, it ought not to complain too loudly. That is all we want to do: We want to provide the honourable members opposite with a full opportunity to have that kind of debate.

Enough said. In the Christmas season, with all I have said, notwithstanding the views of my caucus, strongly committed as it is to a regular sitting next week, I am prepared to accept the amendment of the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Conway moved that when the House adjourns today, it stand adjourned until Monday, December 28, 1987. Mr. R. F. Johnston moved an amendment replacing the words of “Monday, December 28” with the words “Tuesday, December 29.”

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It was 1988, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

1610

Mr. Speaker: I advise all members it was somewhat difficult to read the amendment. You have heard the amendment to the motion. All in favour of the amendment? I declare the amendment carried. Therefore, we have an amended motion. Is it the pleasure of the House that the amended motion carry?

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I specifically asked you when I got up to give my remarks whether I was to speak to both the amendment and the motion. I believe you indicated that, as is the practice, “You are speaking to the amendment and, after that vote is taken, then you can speak to the motion.” I just seek to clarify that.

Mr. Speaker: I thought I made it very clear. I said, “The question now is, shall the amended motion carry?” I looked around and I did not see anyone on his feet. But if the honourable member has something to say on the amended motion, I know other members would be very happy to hear it.

Mr. Harris: Very briefly, on the amended motion, since I did speak to it somewhat when I was speaking on the amendment, I would just like to comment on the government House leader’s remark that he took offence at something that was in my release of today.

He also implied that it was the first time he had heard anything on this whole question of sitting on Monday. I think, once again, perhaps there is selective memory on the part of the government House leader and I think everybody who was involved with the House leaders’ meetings will concur. I believe also that the government House leader has imputed that I did not say something I now say I said, or vice versa. I am not sure which.

I would like to put on the record that yesterday I pointed out to the government House leader the problem with December 27. This morning, I mentioned the problem with December 27 and Bill 51. I specifically mentioned this morning the problem with Monday, not from the members’ point of view but from the point of view of the staff who had to work here and that it was a holiday. I regret that the House leader, unlike everybody else who was in the meeting, does not seem to recall that, but I would like to put that forward for the House’s consideration.

I will indicate as well that we think the amendment is fine. We think the amended motion, for the arguments I put forward before, is silly.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Your argument didn’t reason at all. You are mean-hearted and you know it.

Mr. Harris: We have another interjection. The Minister of Natural Resources says I am mean-hearted. I do not know if that is parliamentary. The Minister of Natural Resources got himself into trouble for an interjection a couple of days ago, when he imputed motives to both the Prime Minister and the Premier of New Brunswick. Now he is back again with an interjection. I do not know if that is parliamentary or not.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mean-hearted is right. There is no other way to describe you.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: There are two ways of ruling today, because when I spoke out I was put down. Don’t deny it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: I think we have indicated where we stand on Bill 51. I think we have indicated where we stand on the amendment to the motion and where we stand on the amended motion. We indicated this morning at the House leaders’ meeting that we understood this motion would be brought forward and we indicated we were not happy with it, but we did say it is the government’s right to bring it forward. So we will not object to the particular motion that is being brought forward.

However, I want it clear that, as far as the Monday goes, that is a holiday for most of the staff. I did discuss that this morning at the House leaders’ meeting and said I thought it did not make sense to come back on the Monday.

Mr. Speaker You are all aware of the amended motion. Is it the pleasure of the House that the amended motion carry?

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

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. Cousens: I wonder what the people of Ontario are thinking now about the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who up until very recently was seen as the Teflon-coated person, protected from anything, nothing would stick to him. I have to say I think something is starting to stick to our Premier. For one who has accused Prime Minister Mulroney of ramming through the free trade agreement, here in this Legislature the Premier of this province is trying to ram through a resolution, resolution 8, that condemns the free trade agreement. He is doing the same thing he accused the Prime Minister of Canada of doing.

May I just say, before I start, I have been ruled out of order several times today because of interjections. If a new Speaker is coming forward and is not going to have the same kind of strong arm that the other Speaker had, I think there is something wrong and I would be asking for some kind of investigation of Speakers’ rulings. We were told to be quiet when the government House leader was coming out with some of the foulest, misguided statements I have heard in this House, and we were told to sit down and be quiet. I think when we are preparing to debate an important piece in this Legislature, they have to do the same and have the same respect for us.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: There is a touch of arrogance. The point I am trying to make is that this Premier, who is Teflon-coated, is losing some of the Teflon, and it is appearing very quickly when you come out and hear him coming forward with this resolution that is causing the Ontario Legislature to rule on the free trade motion before the federal House, and causing us to debate it now. It is something of the kind of thinking that he has accused the Prime Minister of Canada of.

He accused the Prime Minister of Canada of ramming it through, railroading it through. I have to say the same thing is happening in this House. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The whole argument can be summed up in four words, “I’m right, you’re wrong,” and the people of Ontario are becoming increasingly confused at just what we are trying to do and what we are trying to say.

I happen to believe that this is the most important debate of this parliament. It is not something that can be relegated, as the honourable House leader of the party in power said, to the three leaders. I think it is something that affects every Ontario citizen, and I find it shocking that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) and other important ministers who have been involved in this whole debate, have not come forward and participated in this debate. I think it is proof of the fact that the Premier and his government really do not want to have a full debate on this subject.

The fact is, the people of Canada, the people of Ontario, the people of my riding and all the ridings that are represented here, are going to be impacted by the free trade agreement. What I would like to see is an approach by this government that says, “We’re willing to conciliate; we’re willing to work together; we’re willing to make this country strong.” What I see this motion doing, and by the very attempt to have this motion passed before January 2, when the Prime Minister of this country signs the agreement and the President of the United States signs the agreement, what he is trying to do is just say, “Hey, we’re going to put Ontario’s word out there just in time.”

I tell you, it is not right, it is not good, it is not fair. It is not right for one main reason, and I wish the people of Ontario would go back and look at one of the old ads that came out that describes the Ontario public hearings on free trade. I am holding it up here because this Legislature is watched by many, many people, but it was in the Toronto papers, it was across the province.

Mrs. Grier: But not today.

Mr. Cousens: Who knows? I hope they are out shopping and doing the things they should be doing, but I am here to debate the free trade resolution and I think it is probably the most important thing I could be doing right now. That is why I am here, and I am prepared to be here as long as it is necessary to be here.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, you’re not; you’re going home.

Mr. Cousens: If there is anyone I want to interject, it is the Minister of Natural Resources, because there is no one who has more of the spirit of Christmas. He could play Santa Clause anywhere, for any party. I have to defer to him at any time. He is too good a person. But maybe he, for one, did not read --

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: No, I do not tango with him. The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) is one of the best members but, unfortunately, he does not understand the ramifications.

1620

The Ontario public hearings on free trade have written here, “A summary report of the major Endings will be issued by mid-December 1987 and tabled in the Legislature for full debate.” How can we have a full debate on this subject without those also being present?

We are having it, but it is not here. The honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) is not even in the House right now. He has not even had the courtesy, along with his committee that had hearings across the province, to come forward and table the reports. I know why. The reason he has not tabled the hearing results is that the hearings turned out to have a very favourable statement about free trade. That is it. The problem we have is that the Peterson government wants to get this thing out of the way before all the evidence is in. It is trying to stifle this House from having a full, open and honest debate on the subject.

How can the Premier, with any honesty or integrity, refer this to a committee when we have prejudged it by this motion? This motion, this resolution, condemns free trade in the strongest language. Now we are going to have the standing committee on finance and economic affairs of the Legislature go out and review it further.

I call it hypocrisy. I call it a total breakdown of the legislative process. The fact of the matter is that this is going to stick to the Premier. It is going to stick to him as an example of arrogance, as an example of someone who is not willing to listen, as someone who does not show respect of all members of the House by trying to have quick passage of a motion that is so important.

I happen to believe that when we condemn something that a Legislative committee has not even had the opportunity to study, it is wrong. Why send it to committee if that is what we are doing with it?

I also think it should be on the record that the government House leader has said to our House leader, and to the House leader of the opposition party, that the whole free trade subject would come forward in the House with a motion and it could then be referred to the finance committee. What we got instead was the motion that I described earlier. It is this motion which I will not read. It has been read into the record. It has eight points on why free trade is bad. Why have anyone else even look at it? But why have the breach of the agreement that took place?

I think what the members are seeing here is a Jekyll and Hyde in the Peterson government. The way it came out is not unlike what happened when the Premier attended all the meetings with the Prime Minister of Canada. He was as privy to what was going on in the free trade discussions and negotiations as any other Premier in this country.

The Honourable Pat Carney indicated that there were almost two Mr. Petersons. There was the Mr. Peterson who sat in on the hearings behind closed doors, who was quiet and asked certain kinds of questions and showed interest in it. Then, when he went out in front of the cameras and the microphones of the media, he became quite a different person. Instead of being the person who was the moderate behind closed doors, he came out as a strong, hard-speaking, powerful person fighting the free trade agreement.

He was two people: the person behind closed doors and the person in public. It is almost the same thing that has happened here today, where we have the House leader who said one thing -- he said it was going to be a mild motion -- and the next day or a couple of weeks later, in comes this resolution that we are now debating.

If we do not deal with this resolution today in this debate, when else will we have a chance to debate the most important issue that is going to face this Legislature?

I would love it if someone could explain why the Ontario Premier came out and said we are going to examine “the consequences” of free trade. He said, and I have his press release now, “I am therefore establishing a cabinet subcommittee on free trade that will hold public hearings throughout the province to provide an open forum on this issue which has potentially enormous implications for all Ontarians and Canadians.”

He is absolutely right on how important it is. Then he again said: “The subcommittee will report its findings by mid-December. The report will be tabled in the Legislature for full debate.”

What kind of statement is that? On October 8, that was issued from the Office of the Premier, and here we are on December 23 and we still have not received a report from that committee.

I think the Teflon is falling off the Premier. He is no longer the man in shining armour. I think we have seen enough election promises broken in the last several weeks to make every person in this House aware of the fact that we are dealing with a government that is not working. We are dealing with a government that won on false presences.

It came out with its statement on housing during the election campaign and said, “We’re going to have 102,000 new affordable homes by 1989.” There has not been one announcement or one statement on how the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) is going to fulfil that promise.

There is another promise they made for 5,000 student residence places. It was made on the University of Toronto campus. That promise has not been fulfilled. There was a promise of $10,000 for a new home ownership program. That one is not fulfilled. There was an election promise of $297 million pledged for education. What is pledged? Try $60 million.

It goes on and on. What we are seeing is a government abdicating its responsibility and throwing it back on other areas. We are seeing a government which does not know how to handle Sunday shopping and has thrown it back, as it will very shortly, with special legislation. What we are seeing here, in this debate, is a government which is not prepared to deal honestly with the issue. It is not prepared to lay the facts all out. It is withholding information from this House.

What power do we have to get it out of the government? We do not have the power. All we have is the right to stand up strong and proud and say what we believe and present the facts as best we know them and present them as straightforwardly as we can. I make the presentation to you, Mr. Speaker, as I did to my constituents when I won the election on September 10.

That is my commitment. That is the commitment of this party and that is the commitment we should all have as legislators. But we are now being forced to debate an issue when there are many more things that need to be tabled on it, and this government has not done so.

Yesterday, as I was closing down my presentation, I was commenting on some of the changes to the final text of the free trade agreement as it was finally delivered. Since it has been tabled and there has been significant discussion and study on it by many experts, people are finding that the document is very well put together.

There has not been outspoken concern that the document does not meet the terms and expectations that people had for it. Part of the reason for that was that when the legal text was finally tabled, the government, in consultation with the United States, had an opportunity to make some amendments and changes. As we know, all the transportation concerns were withdrawn from the agreement altogether. We know that certain other things were worked out.

I want to table a few other points that were worked out in the final text. What happens is that people have a false understanding of what the text contains, because they expected certain things to be there when, in fact, they now are not. It might help them to be more amenable to accepting that the agreement is going to be good for them.

One of the points changed in the final text from the October elements of it is that there is a change in the definition of the rules of origin, which means that Asian car makers must meet what is effectively a 54 per cent content standard. This is a real bonus for Canadian auto parts producers. There has been a legitimate concern that our auto parts manufacturers, which are a very important part of our manufacturing base in Ontario, could have been hurt. But this kind of determination now in the agreement helps address the concern they were trying to raise.

One other point the text makes clear is that the existing investment restrictions are untouched and that Canada can treat US investors differently, if justified on prudential, fiduciary, health and safety or consumer protection grounds. What it means very much is that we retain sovereignty. That is so important for us to know what is being done by investors in our country. If we see that something is going to be done that is against the guidelines of Investment Canada, then we have the option to do something about it.

1630

The other point that was not clear in some of the early discussions about the free trade agreement was the ability of crown corporations to be recognized by the federal government. That has to be retained as a Canadian right, and indeed it is.

In fact, the final text, as it has been presented and compared, does represent the intentions as defined right from the very beginning when the federal government established a plan to build a free trade agreement with the United States. Now that it is in place, we can begin to see that we have something that is going to work.

I also believe there will be changes, and we have time ahead of us, it is on our side. The Canadian negotiators will continue to seek refinements to this agreement. As they are identified, we will have the doors of communication wide open so that Canadians can continue to build upon this agreement, so that we can continue to open the doors, reduce the tariffs, reduce the barriers to trade and establish a unique, special trading relationship between Canada and the United States; a freer trade environment, a bilateral trade agreement that is going to give Canadians a better standard of living, give Canadians far more than they had before.

I am surprised that over the last number of days one of the people who could have spoken and offered a great deal on the free trade agreement has not only been absent from the House but has not taken the time to speak out on some important issues. I am speaking specifically of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

What we have to look at is that there are a number of major areas in this agreement that have been cause for concern by marketing boards, by farmers right across this country and in this province. What they have to realize is that a number of things that will affect farmers have been agreed to in the agreement, but those things that have been agreed to will have a positive impact on the future of agriculture in our province and our country.

One of those points has to do with tariffs being phased out. Tariffs on agricultural products will phase out. Those tariffs average only about six per cent right now, which is not a lot of money, but it means that when we are buying fruit, produce, vegetables and other agricultural products from the United States, those tariffs will not be there. That is going to be of benefit to consumers, because consumers are going to be able to buy certain foodstuffs cheaper than otherwise.

The other thing, and I referred to it briefly yesterday, is that supply management powers stay through the marketing boards we have, which touch upon so many different areas of agriculture. Articles 710 and 706 of the free trade agreement protect our supply management powers through the marketing boards.

The other point that is covered by the trade agreement is that fresh fruits and vegetables have special rights of protection if prices fall. Article 702 will give us that protection so that our producers of agricultural products -- let us say peaches in the Niagara area -- end up being very cheap across the border. If it turns out that our own farmers are not going to be able to act a return on their investment for their products, then we can have some way of stabilizing prices in this country. So our own farmers are not going to be hurt in a negative way.

Another point that came through from the agreement -- l think it is unfortunate that there has not been a clear, honest debate on this subject. I have to say a lot of it comes from the failure of the federal government to present, as openly and clearly as it could have, the benefits of the free trade agreement. I think there is an awful lot more that the federal government can do on it.

Mr. Black: They’re your cousins.

Mr. Cousens: I am not happy that the federal government has not done a better job explaining what the free trade agreement is going to do for all the people of Canada, and I think that is something it has to begin to do and do more effectively.

I also think the media can be criticized for not just dealing with facts. Certainly, one of the points I presented yesterday about the process and establishment of sectoral advisory groups on international trade has not been presented in the media. I have never seen anything in the media. Now someone will come along and say, “Yes, we mentioned it once.” The point is that the federal government has done an extensive amount of homework in order to build a free trade agreement between our country and the United States that reflects, in an honest and good way, good intentions to build a better trading arrangement between our two counties.

I am touching on agricultural issues. Cattlemen will be exempt from meat import laws. The agreement is going to open border meat inspection rules so that there can be some trading back and forth. But at least we have got protection for them. Article 704 in the free trade agreement certainly accomplishes that. Sometimes, in order to protect different areas of agriculture -- it follows in pretty well every area of trade -- technical barriers can be established that are really quite phoney. Phoney health standards are certain things that are just a way of blocking trade opportunities. Those technical barriers are going to be dropped. Article 708 indicates that will happen.

Through the trade agreement, grain imports will be restricted until there is a level playing field on subsidies. We are dealing with a world market when we are dealing with grain and even though Canada has done extremely well in exporting grain in the last several years, the price has just dropped through the bottom, as many of us know. The fact of the matter is that there are going to be efforts through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and through other negotiations to try to build a better understanding on how we in Canada can continue to be a major producer of grain.

A lot of these inclusions, a lot of these parts of the free trade agreement are included there so that both our countries, Canada and the United States, can continue to have their supply management systems and they can continue to work. What we are really seeing here is the first step by our country in trying to end the global grain war. In fact, if we begin to work it out with the United States, it can have a ricochet effect, a domino effect, on other parts of the world so that we can begin to bring some sense back into the cost of producing grain.

There is a major benefit for red meat producers, potatoes, mushrooms, soybean oil and others. In fact, there are a lot of things that come out of the free trade agreement that people have been talking about for a long time and wanting to do something about. Now at least we are moving in the direction. Dairy processors are protected. We are seeing agriculture right across this country fully understood. I believe farmers are going to come out of this satisfied that they have had someone fighting for them.

I know there are many interjections and that the people who are watching this really do not have a chance to understand where the interjections are coming from. I know some of them are very informed. The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) has things to raise. I guess that is why it is important for this to be debated. He is asking questions and obviously does not have the answers. It is important for him to get involved in this. I am glad he is participating even now. Maybe he can participate even more because, like myself, he probably agrees that free trade is the most important thing that has happened in our country and in our province. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Agriculture is an important ingredient in the free trade agreement and yet it continues to be a surprise and a shock to all of us on this side of the House, with the exception of the rump, that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has not come forward and spoken on this important subject.

There is quite a lot to be said on the whole issue of alcoholic beverages. In the agreement, discriminatory wine markups which are not commercially justified will be phased out. This means that approximately a 20 per cent markup can remain. That is part of the problem GATT had with Ontario’s wine pricing strategy. It is something that had to be worked out and finally, in spite of the fact that our Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) said that it does not matter what happens with the rest of Canada and that what Ontario does is more important, it is important that Ontario honour its trade arrangements and trade agreements with other countries.

1640

The free trade agreement will now start limiting certain forms of pricing that we have. Again, that is going to come out to be a benefit for the people of the province. World-class Canadian distillers finally get tariff-free access. I guess what that is going to mean is the boozers of the world are going to have a chance to get the same price on some of those products as the Canadian price.

It is also significant that the beer companies have themselves protected. They have been grandfathered according to chapter 12 of the agreement. The fact is that Canadian breweries are not competitive with the interprovincial barriers we have in this country. It was important that the federal government, in developing a free trade agreement, understand the brewery industry, and it did, and the brewery workers’ jobs have been saved. They are not impacted in a negative way or in any way by the free trade agreement, except that those workers will probably be able to have more money coming in now because business and the economy in this country and province will undoubtedly be improving with the free trade agreement and people might have a little bit more to spend on some of the luxuries of life.

Provincial wine practices have been the subject of international challenge for years.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: I just have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I was ruled out of order with one interjection when the government House leader was talking, and now we are getting interjections. If honourable members want to participate in the debate, we look forward to it, but I would say that the Speaker, in all fairness, has to treat both sides equally, and I do not see it always happening. The “Order, order” comes when our side is making interjections, and when the other side does -- I would be glad to have them speak and I look forward to hearing the speech of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

Provincial wine pricing practices have been the subject of international challenge for years, and provinces, during the last round of --

The Deputy Speaker: There are many private conversations and it makes it difficult to hear the member talking.

Mr. Cousens: The concern some people have is that the free trade agreement is going to hurt the grape and wine industry. I think the fact of the matter is that the federal and provincial levels, working together with the wine industry, are going to be able to find ways of working out the problems with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and that provincial co-operation is going to be essential to work with the wine industry.

I think the concern I am having goes back to the Minister of Agriculture and Food being involved in this, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. What is the province going to be doing to help certain people who are going to be affected negatively with the free trade agreement?

I believe there are some who are going to suffer because of it. What I would like to see, instead of this statement of confrontation, this statement of condemnation that is coming through the Liberal government, would be to say, “Look, we know it’s going to come into effect; we are then going to be prepared to do things,” those things that are necessary to help make sure that those who are hurt by it are also going to be helped.

By the way, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is here now and I would not mind if I got one interjection from him, because I just cannot believe -- l mentioned this earlier -- the advertisement that was placed in all the papers about Ontario public hearings on free trade. It said, “A summary report of the major findings will be issued by mid-December 1987 and tabled in the Legislature for full debate.”

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Can I respond to that?

Mr. Cousens: Could I just allow a response on that, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to respond to that because I think it is very significant. When that statement was made, the federal government had informed this government on October 5, when we had a meeting, that in three weeks’ time we would see the final text, the legal text; in three weeks’ time we would get it. On the basis of that promise, we said that we would be able to report by mid-December.

We got the legal text on December 11, and if the member has examined the legal text he will know that there have been some changes and we have to adjust our report to take into account those changes. To say that we are at fault when we were promised the legal text in three weeks and it took 10 weeks certainly is attacking the wrong party.

Mr. Cousens: I think the attack continues because the fact is he has not modified other stands. He has had public hearings, has travelled the province and has received a considerable amount of --

Mr. Harris: That was one of the legal interjections, was it?

Mr. Cousens: Well, it was good. I asked for it. The fact of the matter is there has not even been the courtesy in this House where the chairman of that committee, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology could have said just what he said now. What I would like him to do is tell us when his presentations are going to be there, because if he knew on October 5 that he was going to start around, and October 8 was the press release, he has already had his circuit around the province. We would like to know what it is he found out through his hearings.

The fact stands that the government picked up more positive statements for free trade than it did negative, and therefore it does not want to make public its findings. That is the rub and therefore we are not going to see a statement coming from that committee. That committee really has just gone along and spent government money, taxpayers’ money, but really will not have anything to offer this debate in time for us to include it in our considerations.

An hon. member: They do not care.

Mr. Cousens: I do not think they care. I do not think they really understand the importance of this issue. When they come along and say they are going to do one thing and then they do not even have the courtesy to tell us how they are going to handle it, I see it as a major faux pas.

The energy issue, as defined in the free trade agreement, is another issue that I thought the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) would be standing up and speaking on in this House. He has a staff of hundreds. He is in a position, having travelled the province with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, to come into this House and tell us, from his perspective and from that of his ministry, the benefits or the negative problems or whatever on the free trade agreement. The fact that he has not done so is a concern to me. He is not even in the House now and who knows why? What I want to go on with now is on the energy deal --

Mr. Black: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It was announced in this House earlier this week that the Minister of Energy is ill in the hospital. I believe the speaker knows that.

Mr. Cousens: I hope he has a speedy recovery. I did not know that. He is probably watching this debate right now and I hope he improves quickly so that he can be back here on Tuesday with the rest of us.

There are a number of US barriers that are going to disappear because of the free trade agreement and those have to do with US tariffs. It is going to have to do with import fees, customs user fees, uranium restriction funds, all these are identified in annex 902.5 of the free trade agreement. What this means is that with US barriers coming down, it is going to give an opportunity for Ontario marketers to start selling their products south of the border. Threatened barriers are ruled out.

The fact is that very often an investor who wants to sell south of the border is not going to do it because of what is going to happen next year. What is going to happen two years from now? Why set up all the marketing and distributing outlets that they would have to have, which takes a heavy cost, if in fact the United States is going to set up blockades and block those opportunities?

The fact now is that people who are trading with the United States will have a sense of long-term security in knowing that there are not going to be surprises. They are not going to have to worry about what is going to happen next year or two years from now. Article 902 rules out that threatened barriers can be brought in that are going to hurt our energy industry.

In article 907, the US has limited its ability to block imports on the basis of national security. That is always an important concern. It means now that the security of Canada and the United States are in some very real respect tied in together and we are working together to protect this continent from an energy point of view.

Article 904 of the free trade agreement indicates that discriminatory pricing by government action will be prohibited, but different prices will be allowed for commercial reasons. That means there are going to be occasions when there have to be fluctuations in prices. There are going to be different times when we are going to have a different price for gas for farmers for agricultural use. They will be able to continue to have the kind of protection they had in the past.

Canadian ownership rules of energy-producing companies are still unchanged. Provincial control over resources remains as it was. There is also an agreement in article 904 of the free trade agreement to reduce exports on a proportional basis in a time of shortage. What this means is that there can be no unilateral cutoff by Canada. That is part of the intent of a good working relationship between our country and the United States, that indeed we do not want to be caught in the position of playing games with our neighbour to the south and so that we too have a responsibility in the future to continue to honour our commitments.

1650

There are people who sometimes say, “Let’s hold them to ransom.” This agreement means that both sides are negotiating honourably. I think it is important to know why these agreements have been struck. First of all, it gives us secure access to the US market, giving us a cash flow in new oil and hydro projects. This can result in increased supply for us and it means that we can produce more energy. It means that we can sell more energy. In the long term, it gives us more energy security in our country.

It points to a major new opportunity. If in fact Ontario has surplus energy, such as our hydro-electric power systems, then we can start selling more. Maybe it is a time for us to look at developing more energy resources. We can do it. We now have the market for it.

Another reason why these arrangements that have been agreed to in the free trade agreement are so important is that this agreement allows us to reduce exports in a time of shortage if we in fact have a national problem.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I know there are but a few minutes left but the chair would like to be able to hear the member for Markham.

Mr. Cousens: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In time of national need we still will have the option to do what is in the best interests of Canadians and it would therefore mean if we have to reduce our exports in order to meet our own increased capacity, our own increased requirements, then we are in a position to do something about that.

I think what we are seeing as well with the energy agreement within the free trade structure is that the US is agreeing to become far more dependent on Canadian energy. I am wondering, if it were the other way around, would Canadians agree to become more dependent on US hydro if the US reserved the right to turn off a switch at its discretion? Obviously not.

Why should we expect them to? Without secure access to US customers, there will be less investment in new projects and that means fewer jobs, less income and small energy supplies. We would be more dependent on foreign supplies. There would be less energy security for Canadians. Energy economics are no different than for any other commodity. We need a larger market than our own to justify the investment that we want to make in efficient, world-scale production that keeps the price of the product down. Canada retains that right.

As I think about the Minister of Energy, I do apologize, I had no idea that the minister was ill. Yet, I would have hoped that there would have been time for that minister, if the debate was scheduled at a more satisfactory time, to participate in this debate.

I am surprised that the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) has not participated in it. The free trade agreement is built on the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in many respects, but the procurement code in GATT, as implemented in 1981, began to open up the availability of Canadian markets for US and Canadians selling in opposite countries. What now happens through the free trade agreement is that the market of the United States, which is about $3 billion in selling to the US federal government, is now open to Canadians, and the Canadian market for Americans is now open, which amounts to about $500 million.

For us it opens up a huge market. For the Americans it opens up a smaller market, but it is going to make some competition for Canadians. I happen to believe that Canadians can withstand that competition. I am sure they can.

Article 1304 begins to show that there can be an opening up of trade in government sales. One of the points -- and I thought this would come through from the Minister of Government Services I see a happy smile from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). I can tell he is watching the clock and he is just looking forward to something else because we are breaking off at five, and if he wants to break off earlier, he has our permission to go.

The fact is, provincial procurement is excluded from the free trade agreement, so that Ontario business people who depend so heavily on Ontario government sales --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: I think this is a very important point. I just think that if we are to continue to have our own Ontario entrepreneurs dealing with the Ontario government, they know government business has opened up at the federal level and they can still rely on the opportunity to try to sell to the Ontario government. If anyone has ever tried to do it, as I have, he will know it is not easy. But there is an awful lot of business that goes right across this province because of what the Ontario government spends in its acquisitions.

What is really beginning to happen in government procurement policies, as laid down in chapter 13 of the free trade agreement, is that both Canada and the United States will negotiate to extend these rules in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and will resume negotiations later. It means that someday there could be an opening up of trade between people selling to Ontario and our marketers selling to different states south of the border.

I think this is an important consideration in the free trade agreement. It means that there is more open procurement. It has been a long-term, key objective in Canadian trade policy that we can have our people sell to the American government. They now will begin to do so.

In Ontario, officials caution about restraint. They are saying, “Be careful.” The fact is, this deal has limited any kind of trade taking place between Ontario government business and US marketers coming into the country.

I do not think it has been said enough that significant progress has been made with regard to the free trade agreement. It has now given the chance for us to open up more discussions and more negotiations for more bilateral trade. What this does is open up new trade potential.

There are great and significant things that affect investment and what is going to happen in this province as American investors start investing more in Canada and as Canadian investors invest more in the United States. Canada retains the right to review large takeover proposals. Here is a large figure: greater than $150 million in gross assets will be one of those things that comes before Investment Canada. At present, 75 per cent of assets are reviewable. That will remain so.

Therefore, if some company wants to take over a large Canadian conglomerate, Canada can continue to be involved in that and say, “That is not in our best interests. We do not want to have that American company take over this Canadian company.”

I can think of some examples of that. I would like to see Canadian Telecom continue to be a Canadian company. If someone were to try to buy it out -- and I would not be surprised, because of the quality of the business, the quality of the company and the quality of the people -- Canadians would be wise to hold on to that and say: “We are not going to give that up. We want to maintain our distinct Canadian status by having certain companies like this that are not just going to be given away.”

One of the points too is when people start talking about different cultural industries. They continue to have a special status in the free trade arrangement. Article 2005 does protect them.

Countries can treat investors differently. If treatment is equivalent in effect, or if different treatment is required for prudential, fiduciary health-and-safety or consumer protection reasons, then we can continue to do it for whatever reasons they are. Article 1602 of the free trade agreement gives us that opportunity to treat different parts --

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: I did not know the member had a funny bone.

An hon. member: Merry Christmas.

Mr. Cousens: It is just about that stage that Santa Claus is coming down the old chimney for the Attorney General of Ontario.

This free trade agreement wild keep Canadian investment money in Canada. It will create jobs for Canadians, and trade and investment go hand in hand. There is no doubt that we must continue to have them work in harmony.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: As is customary late in the week, I have a business statement for the week coming.

On Tuesday, December 29, Wednesday, December 30, and Thursday, December 31, we will be continuing the debate on government notice of motion 8 standing in the name of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter).

On Thursday morning, we will consider private members’ business standing in the names of the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) and the member for Nepean (Mr. Daigeler). It has been agreed by the three parties that committees will not sit next week. Any additional business will be announced by the agreement of the House leaders.

As the wind gathers in the sails of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), on behalf of the government, at least, I want to take this opportunity to wish all a very merry Christmas and to all a very good evening.

The Deputy Speaker: Before we adjourn, on behalf of the presiding officers, the staff and the pages, who have done an excellent job, we would like to wish all of you and your families a very merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, and may 1988 be very kind to you.

The House adjourned at 5 p.m.

23 décembre 1987