Journal des débats 1988-janv-05 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Farnan: I bring to the attention of this House an appalling situation in Cambridge. Inadequate funding for speech pathology services has resulted in a two-year waiting list for adults needing speech therapy.

According to hospital administrator Don Robertson, 38 people have been waiting for treatment since as far back as November 1985. For Elizabeth Hussey, a 35-year-old requiring medical attention, the longer she waits for speech treatment, the less likely it is to be successful.

Diagnosed in September 1987, she has been unable to get treatment due to the lack of trained professionals. Because she must communicate in order to work, this may mean the loss of her employment. “My faith and hope of receiving help was crushed to find out that the speech therapist at the hospital is so overloaded,” she said in a letter to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) on November 24, 1987.

Communication is our human connection to others. Communication disabilities affect all aspects of daily life, including education, family life and employment.

Many adults in Cambridge wonder why they are being deprived of this important health service. I urge the minister to review the funding for speech pathology services in Cambridge and to provide the funds needed to hire additional trained professionals to cope with the situation.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cousens: I would like to make sure that the people of Metropolitan Toronto are aware that the province introduced a bill known as Bill 29 in late November that will have a significant impact on the future of Metropolitan Toronto.

The government of Metropolitan Toronto has worked extremely well ever since it was created, but I think a large number of questions need to be asked and answered before the bill is passed. Fortunately, the bill will be going to committee in February and will come back to the House for final approval shortly after that, by mid-February.

But do the citizens of Toronto know the changes that are going to be made by Bill 29? Are they aware that the changes will reduce the powers of local councils and possibly make them less meaningful than they have been in the past? Are people in the Toronto area aware that the new Metro council will have joint responsibility with local councils? How well will this work?

Knowing that a separate tier of municipal government was created in Winnipeg, what makes the province so certain that the same system will now work in Metropolitan Toronto?

Our people in this area of Toronto should have a chance to respond and react to the changes in this bill. I hope that people in Toronto who are concerned will make their views known to the clerk of the standing committee on general government before the end of January so that their views can be tabled and considered by the members of this Legislature.

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. McGuinty: Toronto Roman Catholic Archbishop Emmett Cardinal Carter has requested that landlords with multiple properties set aside one house or apartment for families or individuals who are homeless. In addition, he has requested that each of the 208 parishes in the archdiocese of Metro Toronto also find one house or apartment that can be made available.

On behalf of the members of the Legislature, I wish to congratulate Cardinal Carter.

In addition to the practical effects of his good action, his initiative illustrates an important principle. The housing crisis cannot be solved by government alone. Community involvement is required. Government is powerless alone to control things that influence the lives of people from day to day, and people are victims of impersonal economic laws.

Cardinal Carter is eliciting individual, human, personal responses at a time when they are sorely needed. His initiative has increased the consciousness of all of us. We hope that other churches, voluntary groups and individuals will follow the cardinal’s lead and initiate similar programs across Ontario.

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In November of this year, Professor Archibald Thornton of the University of Toronto recommended in a one-man commission to the University of Toronto that it divest all its holdings in South Africa. The president, Mr. Connell, requested that there be written responses to this recommendation by January 4.

Today I am going to be sending a letter to the president of the university, asking him to follow that recommendation to divest all its holdings in South Africa. I am here calling upon the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) and the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) to do so as well on behalf of the government. Any members of this House who feel strongly about this issue should also make their views known to the governing council of the university before January 11, when it meets to make a decision upon this matter.

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. Harris: It is interesting to note that the United Nations has not declared an international focus for 1988; 1985 was the International Youth Year, 1986 was the International Year of Peace and 1987 was the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless.

Perhaps the United Nations looked at the performance of the Ontario Liberal government in making its decision not to recognize a social or economic issue for 1988. When it saw the Liberals actually allow the situation for the homeless in this province to worsen during 1987, it must have decided not to recognize any new issues for fear they would suffer the same fate as the homeless at the hands of this government.

I do not want to be totally facetious about a serious matter. I think it appropriate to review this government’s record in 1987, the United Nations International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. This government has failed on at least three counts. The vacancy rate in Metro Toronto has become three times worse than it was when the Liberals first took office. It is estimated there are more than 10,000 people living on the streets of Metro Toronto alone. The Liberals have done nothing to lessen this number in 1987. Despite the government’s claim about getting people to sit around a table and talk, the actual result is that Bill 51 is an administrative nightmare and housing is no more affordable now than it was at the beginning of 1987.

This is the Liberals’ record during the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Thank goodness the United Nations has not asked them to tackle any other social or economic issues in 1988.

DAVE CHAMBERS

Mr. Beer: As honourable members are aware. yesterday Canada’s national junior hockey team won the gold medal at the world junior hockey championships in Moscow, the fourth international championship we have won this season. In any such victory, there are a number of heroes, and certainly goalie Jimmy Waite was outstanding.

Those of us who struggled out of bed early on New Year’s Day saw a splendid match with brilliant goaltending.

1340

My purpose in speaking today is to salute the coach of the team, a friend and constituent of mine from Newmarket, Dave Chambers. For anyone who knows him through his work as the co-ordinator of men’s athletics at York University and as the coach of York’s excellent hockey teams over the past few years: through his work with the Canadian university team at the Spengler Cup tournament in Switzerland, where last year he won the gold medal, and, of course, through his work this year in Moscow. We know that Dave Chambers’s teams are marked by solid teamwork and discipline. These elements have been shown to be, I believe, the keys to Canada’s success in international hockey.

Canada has had some great coaches at the international level. Fr. David Bauer is, of course, the model from which we have all drawn. Dave King, the Canadian Olympic team coach, exemplifies much of Fr. Bauer’s approach and so, I believe, does Dave Chambers.

To Dave, his wife, Irene, and his daughters, Laurie and Linda, I know all members will join me in expressing our delight for a job superbly done.

NURSES’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Laughren: I am very concerned, as I know some other members are, with the continuing public health nurses’ strike at the Sudbury and District Health Unit. It has now been going on for 11 weeks.

The nurses who work at the health unit are simply trying to protect the security of their association, bargain for a modest wage increase, prevent contracting out and prevent the health unit from adding an extra shift without hiring any more people. Those seem to me to be most modest requests of the nurses.

A particular problem has arisen, and I am glad the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Brown) is here, because at this point there are absolutely no public health services available on the entire island of Manitoulin; none at all. Elderly patients are being asked to make three visits per person to their doctor in order to maintain themselves on the home care program. It seems to me that is an outrageous demand to make of elderly people.

It is time this government established 100 per cent funding for the health units across the province and put in place province-wide bargaining for those nurses, who do such a fine job for all Ontario citizens.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Harris: After two years, we are still waiting for action on the psychiatric hospital in North Bay and the joint hospital in North Bay, and the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) still sits there looking smug.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE PROGRAMS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It was announced over a year ago that special funds would be available for the development of new programs for senior citizens in the province’s network of community health centres.

Because of their emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention, CHCs, as these community health centres are referred to, are an ideal vehicle for the reorientation of our health care system towards maintaining health rather than just treating illness.

CHCs, of which there are now 16 in Ontario, are recognized for their ability to encourage people to take greater responsibilities for their personal health by providing multidisciplinary care and services at the community level. They are nonprofit and community-sponsored agencies providing health services tailored to the needs of a particular neighbourhood or a specific target population.

Doctors, nurses and other health care professionals work as a team in assessing patient needs, providing care and treatment, and co-ordinating services to maintain the health of each CHC member. Physicians are salaried instead of paid on a fee-for-service basis.

Community health centres are run by a board of directors composed of health care professionals and representatives of communities being served, they receive their funding from the Ministry of Health through annually negotiated program-based budgets and they now serve approximately 38,000 patients a year across the province.

By strengthening the role of CHCs, our goal is to make them a stronger partner in the mix of health care services available. To do this, the Ministry of Health set aside $1.5 million in new funding so that CHCs wishing to provide additional services for the elderly could do so. Guidelines for the development of specialized programs were sent to CHCs and to district health councils inviting proposals for new and expanded programs.

Today I am pleased to report that we have had a positive response and excellent proposals for new seniors’ programs. On the recommendation of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council, I am pleased to announce that seniors who are members of four established CHCs in Metropolitan Toronto will shortly be able to receive specialized support services in their own neighbourhoods. The services are designed to improve their quality of life and help them live independently.

Our ministry has approved $383,223 in total additional annual funding for the four new Metro seniors’ programs at CHCs. The money will be made available immediately to Lawrence Heights Medical Centre, $45,944 for a seniors’ mobilization program; South Riverdale Community Health Centre, $158,825 for a co-ordinated seniors’ services program; Regent Park Community Health Centre, $143,454 for a seniors’ community health care program; and York Community Service Centre, $35,000 for a geriatric counselling program.

At the new program at Lawrence Heights Medical Centre, they will serve approximately 1,535 people aged 60 and over, encouraging them to make healthy lifestyle choices. The South Riverdale program will help home-bound elderly from English- and Chinese-speaking communities, giving them nutritional counselling and other forms of health education.

York Community Health Centre will offer counselling to elderly people and their families on ageing, stress, isolation, housing and relocation. Referral services to community resources will also be provided. As well, Regent Park CHC will facilitate access to health and social services, and provide nutrition and addiction counselling for its elderly clients. Foot care, dental care and diet counselling will also be available at the centre.

The announcement of these programs today reflects our government’s commitment to preserve and promote the independence and wellbeing of Ontario’s senior citizens.

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I wonder if I can indulge the House and ask for unanimous consent for me to give a verbal report on my trip to Findlay, Ohio, this morning.

Mr. Speaker: It is ministerial statements. I think that would be in order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, as you know, Firestone and Cooper Tire and Rubber have been negotiating for some time to sell the Hamilton facility of Firestone to Cooper. On December 23 it was announced that Cooper had broken off negotiations. I travelled to Findlay, Ohio, this morning and met with Ivan Gorr, the president of the Cooper Tire and Rubber company, and William Fitzgerald, who is the president of the tire company, to determine if there is some way we could resurrect the deal.

Unfortunately, I have to report to members that they have made a decision. It is irrevocable. They are going to expand their facility in Tupelo, Mississippi, and will not be proceeding with any further negotiations on Firestone.

I tried to get an understanding of what triggered this, and I have to say that from their comments there was not one single factor. If there was one major deterrent, I would have to suggest it was the time frame they had to work in. Eighty per cent of all the tires produced in the Hamilton facility were to go to the United States market. They had commitments they had to meet. They felt the negotiations with Firestone had dragged on far too long for them to meet those commitments.

I also have to say they had some concerns about labour and they also had some concerns about the government funding. Notwithstanding the $56.3 million that had been offered, they pointed out that the $30 million offered by the province was really the only realistic financing they were getting, because the $13.5-million forgiveness of the industry and labour adjustment program loan was really going to be to the benefit of Firestone. The $6.5-million duty remission program, based on the fact that they do not export, would take them, they said, for ever to realize on. As well, the retraining amount of $6 million from the federal government was something that would not accrue to their bottom line.

So it was not one single factor, it was a combination of several -- the time, the funding, the labour -- and that was really it. They expressed a desire that they could come back to Ontario at some other time and talk to us about possible other things they could do, and that is how it was left.

1350

RESPONSES

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am very interested in the comments the minister has just given to this House concerning the situation with Cooper Tire. It is at some little variance with the information that we got this morning, dealing with the president of Local 207 of the United Rubber Workers in the Findlay, Ohio, plant. He said he had talked to the industrial relations manager of the Cooper Tire division just this morning, who informed him, first off, that they were aware of the charges that had been made up here by the minister’s deputy minister about the union being at fault, that they did not see that as the problem and that they would be issuing a statement themselves on that matter, and it will be interesting to see it.

They did also say that the timing, as the minister has indicated, was one of the problems. They indicated that the financial package put together was still not that great, and that may or may not have been implicit in the $30 million being the only good money there, as the minister has stated. They also indicated that they had a concern over an environmental matter, which I think this House should be made aware of, if the minister is aware of it himself.

These were the reasons given for the fall-through, and not a problem with the union. As a matter of fact, they specifically stated that they had not reached the stage yet where there were any serious discussions at all as to what might be involved in terms of the union.

This came, I am told, from the industrial relations manager of Cooper Tire to the president of the union local in Findlay, Ohio.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE PROGRAMS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Reville: I would like to respond to the statement made today by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). Because she was not wearing her flying suit, I guess she did not talk about the airborne division that she has added to the ministry. We, of course, are grateful for these tiny initiatives in respect of health care for seniors.

Two of the community health centres which are going to be receiving funding are well known to me, those being the South Riverdale Community Health Centre and the Regent Park Community Health Centre. I know the people on the boards of those health centres will be delighted to receive this funding.

I must say, though, that community health care continues to take a very tiny, tiny fraction of all the health care expenditure in the province, I think somewhat less than five per cent. Of course, it gives the lie to the government’s rhetoric about trying to change the balance from institutional care to community-based health care programs. I am very sorry to see that. We clearly need much more in the way of community health in Ontario and, within that framework and delivered through that framework, much more in the way of services for seniors, which will allow them to stay in their homes instead of blocking beds in hospitals, which is partly responsible for the absurd problems we are reading about daily in the press today.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I also would like to add a few comments about the Minister of Health’s statement. Anybody here in this House who has tried to get a community health centre established in his riding in a poor community will understand just how difficult it is and therefore how disappointing it is to hear this very small announcement today. I have been trying to establish a health centre in the Warden Woods community in my riding for about a year and a half now.

I must say the number of hoops you are put through as you try to establish this kind of centre is just phenomenal. Poor communities do not have the resources to be able to work towards the community development work that is necessary to establish a board, to find out all the needs that are required, to get the medical expertise brought in, etc., that they need.

What we really need from this government, a government that has added only four new centres since it has been a government, is some community development money to assist those groups to establish themselves, to go through the process. As soon as we get that, then they will find applause from this side of the House in terms of initiatives around community health centres, but until we get that, all we have is an incredible number of barriers and hurdles put in the way of communities with great need and great disadvantage which are trying to get these kind of centres and this kind of health option available to them so they have the same kind of access to good health care that the rest of us in the middle class and wealthier sections of this province take for granted.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to comment briefly on the announcements by the Minister of Health and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson). I think it is a positive gesture. We all want to see more done for our seniors in the province. as a group an increasing population. We have significant responsibilities to our seniors.

Possibly the minister, in investing money in seniors, can go further and make three more announcements. She will not have enough time, depending on how long the House lasts, but one announcement could expand the announcement so that it meets the needs of northern Ontario, eastern Ontario and western Ontario.

The last three announcements that have been made by the minister have all affected Metropolitan Toronto, which is important, but there are many other people across the province and we should be thinking of our seniors right across the province and coming up with programs that meet all those needs.

The second thing we should be talking about is that there are dollars required now for chronic care beds and for other services for seniors. I would be very impressed to see some action coming out of the government in those directions. Home support services are also a crying need right across the province. If the minister were to come along with the kind of dollars we are talking about and put them into any of the budgets of the regions or municipalities’ it would not make any difference but it would begin to help.

All I can say is, please give a greater emphasis to the needs of seniors and the services for seniors. Our seniors are crying for them, but many of them do not even know that services are available within their communities. The minister has to come along with innovative ways so that seniors will come out of their homes and realize there are services there waiting for them.

We have a great challenge. We laud the minister’s initial efforts and hope she will find many more ways of addressing our most important citizens.

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Harris: I want to comment briefly on the Firestone statement that was made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) and say that I am not questioning the minister’s desire to try to salvage a deal nor the statement he has made to us today in that particular narrow focus regard.

I think it is important, but there were a number of things that were said in the summer of 1987. Certainly, the impression was left by this government that if this, this and this were not met in the free trade deal, there was no deal. There was an impression left that the government had something to do or say about it, but after the election, the government said: “No, it is not a provincial responsibility. We cannot do anything. Sorry if you have misinterpreted what we said.”

As well, there was the impression left that this government was going to save the Firestone jobs in Hamilton. Afterwards, of course, that proved not to be possible or not to be the case. I think that should be on the record as well.

The other thing I find interesting in this, or disturbing if you like -- passing strange is the phrase for the month, I guess -- is that the minister has made a statement that the government had nothing to do with this. This was private sector company to private sector company. Then we find out that Mr. Lavelle, who is the deputy minister --maybe the minister does not consider him government; I do not know -- all of a sudden is the man who calls the union and says: “You have half an hour. Here is the deal.”

How does he know the deal if the government was not involved? Why was Mr. Lavelle making this phone call in the first place? I know the minister just got back and has not had time for a written statement, but I hope he will make a statement to answer some of these questions.

Was the government involved or not? If the government was not involved, why was it committing $30 million if it was not at the table; or $40 million, because we heard the Premier (Mr. Peterson) say, “Go down there and offer them another $10 million”? What value for money was being put on these negotiations? Was the minister looking at whether it made sense?

These are questions that my colleague the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) has raised. The government was willing to give $30 million, $40 million -- who cares? -- to go down and do whatever it could. The Premier said he would save the jobs. It does not matter what it costs, but $70,000 is the maximum the government will allow for retraining.

On the Lavelle issue, was the minister involved? He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say: “We will give $40 million, but we do not know what is going on. We are not at the table.” Surely that does not make much sense. The other side does not make much sense either, to say, “We are not involved,” when it is Mr. Lavelle, the deputy minister for the government, who seems to be in there, knows what the final deal is, made a statement disputed by many others now that, “Here is the deal; take it or leave it,” and blames it on the union.

There are a number of questions that I think remain to be answered. I hope when the minister has time to collect his thoughts, he will make a more complete statement tomorrow and answer some of these questions and concerns that we have.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: The Premier will be aware of the information contained in this morning’s Globe and Mail, the fact that Firestone Canada has a total of $46.3 million in deferred taxes, taxes not paid here in Canada. He will also be aware that in two extraordinary transactions, Firestone repatriated $20.8 million in cash back to the United States as per its 1986 statement; and then on January 2, 1987, a board of directors resolution transferred another $53 .7 million back to the United States: a total of $74.5 million, not counting $13.6 million in annual licensing fees. Does the Premier agree with our role as a cash milk cow to these irresponsible corporate blood-suckers?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable colleague can provide the member with more details on that set of transactions.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure most members have read the report in the Globe and Mail this morning. On my way down to Ohio, I happened to have with me one of my assistants, who is a former vice-president of Coopers and Lybrand. I said to him, “What do you think?” He said: “Let me tell you, you may not like it, but the only way you can change it is to change our federal tax laws. Nothing was done by Firestone that any other corporation could not avail itself of.”

We have a situation where the member may not be happy with the situation, but on the other hand, that is the tax law and you cannot have one tax for one company and another for another. They are just following what they are allowed to do under the corporate tax system, and that is what they were doing. Until someone has shown that what they did was illegal, all you can do is express concern. The member’s point is taken, but representations have to be made to the federal government to deal with the tax laws.

Mr. Mackenzie: Once again to the Premier: What action are the Premier and his government prepared to take --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry; you will have to place your supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Mr. Mackenzie: To the minister then: What action are the minister and his government prepared to take to ensure that Firestone takes a much more positive role in terms of the employees and their community, who are going to do the suffering while Firestone laughs all the way to its Ohio bank?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We have announced on several occasions that there is a program in place chaired by Mrs. Anne Jones. We are looking at counselling. We are doing all the things we can do to help those workers. The very first thing I did when I landed in Toronto today was to call both Charlie Scime, the president of the union, and Bob Morrow, the mayor of Hamilton, to inform them of what we are doing and to assure them of our co-operation.

Mr. Mackenzie: Does this lack of good corporate citizenship not finally convince the minister and his party of the need for plant closure legislation that might give us some time and protection for workers? Apart from the greed of the Firestone company and the negotiations that went on, plus the current milking of the Canadian branch plant, the minister will note that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce also got its $30 million out in a hurry, money it had in deferred shares in the company.

Will the minister not work with the federal government very quickly to see that the deferred taxes, the industry and labour adjustment program moneys plus other moneys owing to the workers are picked up or put in some form of trust or held before everything is ripped out of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know that the ILAP $13.5 million is in a trust fund. Certainly, as a result of my meeting today, I will be conveying the information I have to my counterpart in Ottawa and we will be working with the federal government.

PERINATAL CARE

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health has managed to get free trade out of the newspapers temporarily by arranging to have the skies of Ontario and the United States full of aircraft transporting babies and expectant mothers from Metro to hospitals outside Metro. I wonder whether the minister would care to comment if that is all we can expect from our $5.6-billion institutional care budget?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me share with the members of the House my own concern over the events which have been reported in the last couple of days and share with the member and members of the House the information I have regarding our provincial perinatal system.

We have a system in this province that responds to the needs for high-risk births. There are five hospitals in the province that are designated level-3 perinatal units, and there are five which are modified. Of the first five, two are located in Metropolitan Toronto, and one each in Hamilton, London and Kingston. The other five are located in North Bay, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sarnia and Windsor.

All of these hospitals are capable of responding to high-risk birth situations. The only difference between the first five that I mentioned and the second five is the educational and research capacity. The response is through a centralized registry so that we can respond to the needs of patients requiring that kind of care.

The concern I have is the capacity within that system, and I have asked for additional information from the ministry. Notwithstanding that concern, I can tell the member and the members of this House that our system is an interprovincial and international system to ensure that residents of Ontario have the services they need and that we can respond to their needs. I am concerned about the capacity of the system and will be addressing that.

Mr. Reville: It is totally unacceptable for the Minister of Health to stand here and recite a list of programs that clearly have not worked for the people needing health care in this province. One of the situations is not a perinatal situation; it is a neonatal situation.

There is a young baby now starting its first few days of life in Buffalo, for goodness’ sake. I am not sure whether that should be visited on a citizen of Ontario, particularly when this government crows about how crumby the US health care system is and how wonderful our system is. Yet there is a little, unknown baby in Buffalo Children’s Hospital, where the administrator is a refugee from the Hospital for Sick Children. He says when he was here, it would never have happened. I want the minister to comment on that.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I stated, without the theatrics of the member opposite -- because I do not believe this is a situation we should be theatrical about, but instead should assure the people of this province that their health care needs are being responded to -- my concern is that we have a system that has the capacity to meet those needs.

The situation he is referring to specifically about the infant who was sent for care to Buffalo was a result, unfortunately, of a nursing shortage at the Hospital for Sick Children. There was no lack of beds or respirators; there was a nursing shortage. I am concerned that it is not so much that the nurses are not available as the fact that this particular job is extremely stressful and it is very hard to find nurses who will do this type of nursing. The requirements are very onerous.

However, the needs of Ontario citizens are being met, and we are working to ensure that the capacity is there to meet the needs in the future.

Mr. Reville: The minister sees fit to chide me for being theatrical. I suspect Mr. and Mrs. Sisnett thought it was pretty theatrical to hop into a Lear jet. I suspect the mother, who was afraid of flying, thought it was pretty theatrical to get into a helicopter to go to Buffalo so that the child could be cared for there.

Is it not the case, and will the minister perhaps advise the House, that there were spaces available right here in Toronto but that because the policy says they deal only with maternal transfers and this baby who has gone to Buffalo was already born, it could not use the space that was available here in Ontario? I would like to ask the minister whether she thinks that is an acceptable approach to delivering health care services and what she is going to do about it.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The information I have is that, in the case of the infant who was transferred to Buffalo, space was not available at Mount Sinai Hospital. Checks were made -- and this is within the system -- at all other Ontario hospitals to see if they could offer the care required. We checked as well with hospitals in Montreal and in other US cities, and then the child was sent once we found a place in Buffalo.

On the other hand, in Ontario, as part of this interprovincial and international network, we accept cases from other provinces and other jurisdictions as well as attempting, in this very highly specialized and very important area of perinatal care, to respond to the needs of residents of Ontario, citizens, and also those people in other jurisdictions who are part of our centralized network.

1410

Mr. Brandt: My question is also to the Minister of Health with respect to the same topic.

We have a situation where a mother had to be flown to Kingston to have triplets, as the minister is aware. Today we are advised that a newbom infant had to be taken to Buffalo. We have since learned, in addition to the information that my honourable colleague has shared with us, that a critically ill newbom was recently taken from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg. So we have a situation where we are flying these newboms out of the city, out of the province and out of the country.

With a world-class health system with world-class hospitals, can the minister indicate to this House very clearly how this situation can be allowed to continue?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: One of the questions I asked, because of the concerns that I personally expressed to members of this House, was exactly that; that is, what is the capacity of the system’? What I was told is that we have experienced in the last couple of days an unusual peak, if you will. It is very difficult, in these kinds of high-risk, premature birth situations to anticipate when the births are going to take place. That is the very nature of what this is all about.

However, I am concerned because our system is reaching capacity, as noted by the fact that we are utilizing our system and working with other provinces as well to meet the needs of Ontario residents. I will be moving in the very near future to add capacity to the system in Ontario so that we can ensure we will meet the needs of Ontario residents.

Mr. Eves: These are not mere isolated incidents in the last couple of days. Last year some 24 women with high-risk pregnancies were transferred to other hospitals throughout Ontario from Toronto alone, as I am sure the minister is aware. Now we have three instances in the first five days of 1988.

From the 1985 to 1986 fiscal years, there was an increase of 2,000 newborn admissions to hospitals in Ontario, yet the Ministry of Health increased the number of newborn beds by only 37. Why?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to make sure the member is very clear in not confusing newborn beds with the perinatal system beds. These particular beds, which are part of a province-wide system -- there are 10 hospitals that respond -- are very specialized and highly sophisticated in their needs and requirements. These are for low-birthweight infants, many of whom would previously not have survived.

I want the member to know how pleased I am that we have the kind of health care system in Ontario that can respond to those kinds of needs and save lives of infants who previously would not have survived.

Mr. Eves: The minister has not begun to respond to the question of why there were only 37 beds.

A spokesperson for the Hospital for Sick Children indicated to us this morning that there is “a constant juggling of babies” at the Hospital for Sick Children. The Ontario Nurses’ Association says that there is a nursing shortage. This is nothing new. The minister has known about this for a long time. I brought it to her attention two months ago in this Legislature, as a matter of fact.

Ted Stibbards, who heads the Buffalo Children’s Hospital, is quoted as saying it is very unusual to find this sort of situation occurring. “It would indicate that things are different than when I was there.” Stibbards, as the minister knows, used to head up the Hospital for Sick Children here in Toronto. He left the hospital in 1984. He indicates that in the nine years he was the head of Sick Kids prior to 1984, this type of situation never once occurred.

The Liberals have been in charge of the health care system in Ontario since 1985. They have seen all these things developing over the past two and a half or three years. Why have they not done anything about it? Are they going to give this House a commitment today that they are going to spend the amount of money that is necessary to bring this health care system back to world-class, where it belongs and from whence they took it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say that, while I have concerns about the provision of perinatal care-and I have addressed that issue, I think, in this House at this time and I would also be willing to discuss it further with the member opposite -- I am very proud of the steps this government has taken over the past two and a half years to improve health care in this province. The increases to base budgets in the past two years have been unprecedented. The amount of money, $850 million, into expansion of the institutional sector has been significant and we are moving forward.

However, we cannot take and we are not taking all of those for granted. We recognize there may be areas where we must increase and expand. Let me say that funding is not a problem in the area of perinatal care. There are other factors, such as nursing care, which is a concern. However, I am looking at expansion of the system and I hope to be able to have an announcement in the near future.

PRA INTERNATIONAL INC.

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. It is with respect to the matter that was raised in the House yesterday regarding PRA International Inc. in London.

As the minister is aware, the mandate of the Biddell report was to identify companies that were in trouble or in need of future support. That was indicated in the release by the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil), on October 14, 1986. He very clearly indicated that was what Biddell was to find out.

The Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Patrick Lavelle, indicated that he had a copy of the Biddell report in his possession in early February 1987. The government had fully four months either to secure its investment in PRA International or to secure the technology by making a further investment in that same firm.

Can the minister indicate to us now why at least the part of the Biddell report related to PRA cannot be released to the members of this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party will know that Jack Biddell submitted his report and was asked to follow up with a couple of other reports that he is still working on. Notwithstanding that the recommendations he had made have been implemented by the Ontario Development Corp. and, as a matter of fact, in his latest report the Provincial Auditor was satisfied that all of those things had been looked after. In fact, in his reporting letter to me he said there was no matter of consequence that he could even comment on in the operation of that portfolio by the Ontario Development Corp.

Mr. Brandt: Who is in charge? We heard yesterday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) respond to my question by indicating that the IDEA Corp. was totally independent and made all of its own decisions.

Mr. Pope: Now the ODC.

Mr. Brandt: Now the ODC or is it in fact the government? We are trying to get to the bottom of who in fact approved of the moneys related to this particular corporation.

It is interesting to note that a representative of the Ontario Development Corp. who sat on the board of PRA quoted in the London Free Press that they were interested in the Plasmarray system that was being developed by PRA, and he said of this particular system: “It was leading-edge stuff. If more money had been spent to market it, the company might have made it.”

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Brandt: I want to get to that, but I had to give this background.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate all that and I allowed the member to give all that background. Would you please place the question?

Mr. Brandt: I am glad you asked, Mr. Speaker.

The question to the minister is, since more money might have saved the firm, why did he or someone not intervene either to provide more money to PRA International Inc. to bring this technology to the point where it was marketable, or --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

1420

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If I could just briefly go through the chronology of how this worked, in December 1985 a decision was made by the IDEA Corp. Even though this government had announced that it was going to wind it up, IDEA was still in control. They made the announcement that they were going to provide the funds. In July 1986, the IDEA Corp. was turned over and the portfolio was put under the management of the Ontario Development Corp., where it is now.

By the time Mr. Biddell’s report came in, the report went to the Ontario Development Corp., which was responsible for administering the IDEA portfolio.

On the one hand, the member is asking why we did not give them more money and, on the other hand, he is asking why did we not just cut them off and save --

Mr. Brandt: One or the other.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The point is that the decisions were made in a prudent, businesslike way. Representations were made. The member has heard of the now famous letter from Mr. Parkes to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in which he asked for $500,000. That was subsequently turned down by ODC because the business case could not be made. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Brandt: We questioned why the government gave the money in the first place, but after it did, there was at least some chance that the government might have been able to save the firm or, on the other hand, cut the losses.

Let me read from a press release in February by the former minister. “The affairs of the IDEA Corp. will be phased out as of June 30, 1986, Treasurer Robert Nixon and Industry, Trade and Technology Minister Hugh O’Neil announced today. In the interim period, the affairs of the corporation will be the responsibility of Mr. O’Neil.” That is what he said in his press release.

I want to ask the minister, since we are trying to get to the bottom of PRA, how the moneys were given in the first place and why the company was allowed to get rid of its assets to the banks, and perhaps to corporations south of the border in the United States --

Mr. Speaker: Minister --

Mr. Brandt: We have raised the question with the minister -- this is my question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I distinctly heard you put a question.

Mr. Brandt: No, I am getting to the question.

Mr. Speaker: You are?

Mr. Brandt: As the Provincial Auditor has no statutory powers to check into the affairs of private companies or to ask for any of those files will the minister now agree, since the only way he is going to get to the bottom of this is through a judicial inquiry, to undertake a judicial inquiry to determine what happened to the $1.5 million in PRA International?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member should know, because he used to occupy this portfolio, that when the government gets involved in the funding of these industries in Ontario they are usually funders of last resort. If the company could go to normal lending institutions such as banks and pledge assets, pledge securities, it would not come to us. Unfortunately, that is the role we play.

As those members who were at estimates will remember, the members of the official opposition felt we should be risking even more money and that we were running a too small-c conservative operation.

The point I am trying to make is that when this thing runs, the Provincial Auditor will be checking all of these things. If he decides that in his opinion there should be further investigation, he will be free to recommend that to us. But, in the meantime, he is a servant of this House. He is going to take a look at the whole operation and will report to this House for further determination if required.

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have another question for the Premier. He is reputed to have first heard of the closing of the Firestone Canada Inc. plant through a note passed on to him at a social function by the president of Firestone Canada.

Do these corporate pirates also inform the Premier that this is the second time they have done this in Ontario? The Whitby plant had everything possible taken out of it when Firestone closed the operation down. Has he also informed the Premier of what the union just found out this afternoon --that is, that their pension fund is not fully funded? As a matter of fact, it is underfunded to the tune of $8.9 million at this time.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with the details the member is raising, but I would be very happy to have the minister check into it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Will the Premier also tell us what we should tell the workers at Firestone who have contacted the Pension Commission of Ontario and been told at least five years are allowed to fully fund the $8.9 million missing from their pension fund? Indeed, they may want to take as long as 15 years.

Some of those workers are going to want to settle their affairs, put their money into registered retirement savings plans, do other matters, and they are now faced with the possibility that they may not be able to get their money out because of the lack of full funding in that pension plan. Can he tell us what we should tell the people in terms of this situation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honour-able member bringing that to my attention. I was not aware of it. I will ask the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who is responsible, to immediately launch an investigation, and we will make sure there are absolutely no violations of the law of Ontario.

I thank the honourable member for bringing it to my attention.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier will be aware that on December 11, 1986, the standing committee on public accounts, an all-party committee, recommended that a judicial inquiry be launched into the activities of the IDEA Corp., especially at that time as it pertained to the Wyda Systems and the Graham Software investments.

That was over a year ago that an all-party committee recommended a judicial inquiry into the IDEA Corp. Could the Premier tell us why, once again, like the select committee on retail store hours, like the debacle he is making out of the committee studying free trade, he chose to ignore a recommendation made by a committee of this House, one that maybe now he will acknowledge might have saved us a substantial amount of money?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think there is any evidence of that at all. We have gone through the chronology of that situation. I gather the honourable member’s position now is that we should give them more money. I think the Provincial Auditor will get to the bottom of this entire matter and I have every confidence in his judgement and his impartiality.

Mr. Harris: The Premier refers to the auditor. Our office contacted the Provincial Auditor this morning. The spokesman for the auditor said he had yet to receive any communication from the minister, the Premier or the government. They had no idea of any terms of reference, no idea how long an audit would take and, in fact, the first they had heard of it up to that point was through the media.

The referral to the auditor is not enough. The Premier will know that the auditor has no statutory authority to check private companies and the only way to get access to find out what really went on is to have a complete public review.

Will the Premier not now accept the recommendation, albeit 13 months later, of the public accounts committee and agree to a judicial inquiry of the whole situation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be unkind, but I think the honourable member’s facts are wrong again. The auditor was spoken to yesterday by the Secretary of the Cabinet, asking if he could undertake this inquiry. He said yes, and in fact I understand they are working on it today. I think my honourable friend will want to check who his so-called official spokesman is and check out his facts before he puts those suggestions in the House.

GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Many projects come forward from time to time in municipalities that require co-operation from the provincial government in various forms. One of those forms is to provide excess provincial land. They range from housing complexes to sports facilities to garden plots. If these projects are worth while, a partnership among this level of government, the municipal sector and the private sector would seem to make good sense.

Will the minister consider providing land on long-term leases for nominal amounts to municipalities for projects approved by the councils of those municipalities that would be to the overall benefit of the community?

Hon. Mr. Patten: I would like to thank my colleague the member for Mississauga West. He asks a variety of questions that I think deserve some clear answers.

First of all, his reference to government lands related to housing. He will be aware that our particular ministry plays an important role by reviewing the housing potential of every piece of government land that we have in the province. Of course, there are ongoing discussions because of the great interest by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosek) related to the use of land for housing. These discussions take place as well as, of course, the Housing First deputy ministers’ committee, which is looking for a variety of ways of strengthening that role.

In relation to municipal recreational uses, in terms of sale, our policy is to offer land for direct purchase at market value to these particular municipalities. Of course, the member will know that the municipalities themselves, depending on the purpose in terms of the use of these lands, can apply to other government programs for support in order to do that.

When it comes to leasing, we have a program --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seemed like a fairly extensive response.

1430

Mr. Mahoney: It did indeed, Mr. Speaker. If the honourable members opposite knew the seriousness of this situation, they would not be making such silly remarks. It seems to me that an opportunity to provide incentive to the private sector, which they would not understand, to provide facilities that would otherwise have to be paid for by the property tax or by the provincial tax is a good idea.

Will the minister consider a program to provide this incentive to the private sector through land use planning in co-operation with the municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Patten: As I think the member would know, we are always happy to entertain proposals that come forward that show strong co-operation for the use of lands for the people of Ontario.

I might add that in terms of the leasing arrangements -- and I think the member’s part of the province falls under what was previously called the park belt plan -- under that arrangement, special leasing arrangements are made with municipalities in the surrounding areas. Some have already been done with some of the municipalities in terms of recreational use. Of course, the province always retains the option for future development of these lands by making these lease arrangements. If the member is asking whether lease arrangements are possible, the answer is yes, they are.

PRA INTERNATIONAL INC.

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology arising out of his statement yesterday and also, in part, from his less than complete answer to the first question by the leader of the Conservative Party.

Yesterday the minister stated that the Biddell report, a report which the standing committee on public accounts was told by Mr. Biddell was complete, would be provided to the Provincial Auditor for his inquiry into PRA International. Can we therefore assume that the Biddell report deals with the loss of the $1.5 million through PRA, and can the minister tell the House what rationalization he has that he is willing to provide the Provincial Auditor with this report but his government is not prepared to provide the public accounts committee and the public with that report?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: To the first part of the question, I cannot assure the member that the report deals with PRA because at the time that report was compiled -- the first part of the report that I am talking about -- the $1.5 million was not lost.

What we have is a situation where we are going to provide Mr. Biddell’s report to the Provincial Auditor. We will also provide the subsequent reports. There are two other reports that he is still preparing. When those are complete, they will be provided to the Provincial Auditor. When he is finished, he is going to be able to provide everything, including that report, to this Legislature to be dealt with as the Legislature sees fit.

Mr. Philip: It is an interesting situation we have, where yesterday the minister said he will provide a report and now he is not sure whether the report has any relevance to the inquiry that the Provincial Auditor is undertaking. No doubt a number of documents will be examined by the Provincial Auditor during his forensic audit, which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) agreed to yesterday.

Will the minister guarantee the House today that no government restrictions will be placed on any of those documents in their use by the auditor and, at the auditor’s pleasure, on the release of those documents, where he sees fit, both to the public accounts committee and to the public?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would be pleased to provide that assurance that there will be no restriction on the documents that are provided to the Provincial Auditor. He certainly will have the freedom, at his discretion of course, to provide whatever he wants to the Legislature.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. In response to a question from my leader yesterday, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said: “I do not think my friend should get the impression that any secret information is being suppressed in this matter. We are sharing these things with him and are happy to do so.”

We have information that the government has commissioned a report on free trade from Informetrica Ltd. of Ottawa. We are also led to believe that the government is in receipt of this report. Will the minister clarify whether he has commissioned or has received this report at this time?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Unfortunately, I am not aware of the report. I will be happy to look into it for him and get back to the member.

Mr. Sterling: I thought he might not be aware of it. We are informed that this report, which has been commissioned by the minister’s Liberal government, is supportive of free trade. Perhaps the reason he is being either not told about this or has no knowledge of it is the fact that the results of this report are against his particular position. If the minister gets a chance to ask his staff about this report, will he immediately live up to the promises of the Premier and table that report forthwith?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have already given the member my assurance that I will look into that report and get back to him on it.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Education. Across the province, public and separate boards are negotiating school transfers. In my own riding of Peterborough, I am urging all concerned to try to settle the matter within the community, avoiding the external arbitration route. Are there boards which are successfully completing negotiations on their own?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to thank the honourable member for his question. I point out to him that negotiations are indeed continuing in the Peterborough area regarding the accommodation needs of both the public and separate boards. I also want to assure the member that, overwhelmingly, jurisdictions throughout this province have dealt with this matter successfully, arriving at solutions within the community, whether they be by the willing transfer of facilities, entering into lease arrangements or through sharing arrangements.

Mr. Adams: In the event negotiations fail within the community, what sort of support is there for the parties concerned?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The ministry will lend whatever assistance it can to parties involved in such disputes. The Planning and Implementation Commission monitors the negotiations very carefully and provides advice and assistance when required, as well as the ministry directly. Again, I want to stress that mediation and arbitration are utilized only as an absolute last resort.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Premier. It follows from the exchange I had yesterday with the Minister of the Environment. It is very difficult to ask supplementary questions of the Minister of the Environment because there is nothing to be supplementary to; so it is in effect a supplementary to the Premier.

Yesterday the Minister of the Environment admitted that his ministry had commissioned no systematic study of the effects of free trade on the environment.

An hon. member: Here he is.

Interjections.

[Applause]

Mr. Breaugh: The only place in the world where the third string gets applause.

Mrs. Grier: Can the Premier explain why his government, which purports to have such a strong concern for the environment, which has commissioned reports on the effect of the free trade deal on women and on the effect of the dispute settlement mechanism and is looking into a constitutional audit of the free trade deal, has failed to recognize the very significant impact this deal could have on our ability to make environmental decisions and is undertaking no systematic study of that effect?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I know you will understand this. I have never been as relieved to see anybody in my entire life. I will refer this to the very competent Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the Premier has referred this to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am pleased to assist in providing an answer to this question. If members of this House will recall, one of the first people in the country of Canada to point out the potential difficulties of a free trade agreement was the Minister of the Environment of Ontario.

1440

At the meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers in Alberta, not this past year but the year previous to that, I raised this issue. At the same time, I raised the issue of attempting to have the proceedings of that meeting held as a public meeting. Unfortunately, the other ministers did not agree with that, but on that occasion I expressed that.

This past summer, when we had a special meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers right here in Toronto -- and it was reported in some of the Toronto newspapers --I once again indicated the disapproval of our province from an environmental point of view and raised the same questions.

I have utilized as well the information provided by environmental groups, many of which receive funding from the provincial government for various research projects, and I have utilized the information of people from universities as well as the very expert opinion of the people from the Ministry of the Environment. All of these have been useful instruments in making --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Supplementary.

Mrs. Grier: I would be the very last person to suggest that the minister had not talked about his concerns or had not raised his concerns. I was trying to ask a question, to find out what they had done about those concerns, and I was very specifically going to raise with the Premier a quote from a speech of his which said that “a healthy economy and a healthy environment are not contradictory.”

The Minister of the Environment has supported the recommendations of the World Commission on Environment and Development, which include the fundamental belief that environmental and economic planning cannot proceed in separate spheres. Yet in the discussion and the action of this government with respect to the free trade deal, we have not seen action with respect to the environment.

Mr. Speaker: The question would be?

Mrs. Grier: Can the minister explain on behalf of the government why the resolution opposing free trade which this House has been debating lo these many years or days -- it seems like years-and which includes in its preamble a number of instances in which the government disagrees with the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal has no mention --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I suppose any resolution that we could bring forward could contain almost endless lists of the potential ramifications of the free trade agreement on Ontario. Indeed, our province has looked beyond our borders to the country of Canada. But I, as the --

Mr. Breaugh: Wait a minute. We are in Canada still.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Yes, that is right.

Mr. Speaker: The response.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am simply saying that we in Ontario take a national outlook when dealing with issues of this kind, as our Premier has on many occasions. What I indicate to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore is that our province was in the forefront of bringing to the attention of others the potential adverse impact of a free trade agreement on the environment. Everybody in the province who is aware of environmental issues can spot the potential problems that would exist.

We could commission a hundred studies on it, which would no doubt confirm what we have said, but I think anyone -- and I include the member in this, of course -- who is at all aware of environmental issues would know without a very detailed study being presented that there are a lot of potential downsides to a free trade agreement for the environment. I think her input, the input of all members of this House and my input, as only one member, will bring to the attention of all and sundry the adverse consequences, potentially, of a free trade agreement.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: Yesterday there was an ad that appeared in the Toronto Star. One man felt that $13,000 of his own money was not too much to spend. It mentions that the Legislature’s all-party select committee on retail store hours studied hundreds of briefs. “These MPPs unanimously recommended a common pause day.”

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

Mr. Harris: My question is to the Premier. Last May, just before the Sunday shopping committee that was referred to released its report the Premier stated that unless there was “something terribly offensive in the report” he could support its major recommendation. Since the election, the Premier, with his majority, has completely ignored the all-party recommendation.

I wonder if the Premier can tell this House what he found so terribly offensive in that report that caused him to completely change his position on Sunday shopping.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just one correction of fact. I do not believe it is one man’s money; I believe it is one corporation’s money and that is, of course, tax deductible. The federal government and the provincial government did assist in putting that ad in the newspaper and we were very happy to do that in the interest of free speech.

Second, with respect to the --

Mr. Sterling: What a rationalization.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I just want to correct the facts, because they are important in discussing this issue.

We came to the conclusion, after very serious scrutiny of the report, that it was unworkable, that it would just add more overlays and more complications of the situation and was, in a sense, unenforceable. We came to the conclusion that since retail stores are controlled now six days a week -- indeed, seven days a week -- by municipalities with respect to the tourist exemption, it was a fair, reasonable, democratic way to go. Interestingly enough, it works extremely well in a number of other provinces. I am sure that as soon as my honourable colleague has studied that and wrapped his mind around it, he will come to the same conclusion.

Mr. Harris: The Premier says it is unenforceable, so he gives it to the municipalities to enforce. Is that not great?

Does the Premier not realize that he is making a mockery of the committees around this Legislature? There is a committee studying free trade. The Premier is saying, “We would like you to study the free trade deal, but whatever you come up with does not matter because we have already made up our minds.” There was the committee on Sunday shopping which made a recommendation, and all three parties signed it, but the Premier is saying: “We do not care what you found. We are going to do what we want because I am in charge now and I have 94 seals to help me.”

Hon. Mr. Scott: Would you buy a turkey from the leader of the third party?

Mr. Harris: Some of the seals are bigger than others.

Last August in the middle of an election, after plenty of time to study the report, the Premier said there was widespread support for a common pause day and he would not be making any changes. I will ask the Premier again: Other than getting the 94 seals behind him, letting him do whatever he wants, what caused the Premier to change his mind so dramatically on the Sunday shopping issue?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend accuses this government of not listening to the committees of the House. I do not think that is a fair charge because I have the highest respect for the members of this House, unlike my friends opposite.

His leader put in an emergency resolution in favour of the free trade agreement some time in December, even prior to the committee having a look at it. How could that be-a member prepared to make up his mind in the absence of thorough study, the way the government has studied this issue? I do not think my honourable friend’s charge is credible in that regard.

As I said to my friend with respect to the question he has asked, we came to the conclusion, after very serious scrutiny, that the proposals of the select committee on retail store hours were unworkable. That is why we have come up with a solution we think is practical, sensible, democratic and progressive. We believe the majority of people in this province will support this major step forward.

[Later]

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to rise to correct the record and to apologize if I have misled any members of the House. Earlier today, I indicated that the Premier had 94 seals. One swam away and there are now only 93. I would like to correct the record.

AIR QUALITY IN SCHOOLS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Education. For well over a year now, my predecessor, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), has been raising the question of air quality in a lot of our schools in Ontario. In the last two days, we have heard now of cases in Toronto of levels 10 to 12 times higher than government standards in terms of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and mould in the air. Can the minister at this point tell us how many schools in Ontario have negative air quality in them and what he is doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I cannot tell the member for Scarborough West how many schools in Ontario are reporting problems with air quality, but I will endeavour to get that information for him and report back to him.

With reference to the stories that appeared this morning, particularly as they relate to a public school in Etobicoke, I want to assure him that the Ministry of Labour did undertake specific testing there. The board was advised this morning that carbon dioxide levels at that school were within acceptable standards. As a result of a complaint by an employee at that school some year and a half ago, the Ministry of Labour was called in to do some inspections. The board was given some advice on how to improve ventilation and take some remedial steps. Those maintenance efforts were successful and they were able to reduce the levels to an acceptable limit.

1450

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I gather from this that the ministry has not done any systematic testing of schools in Ontario and has not itself established, in liaison with the Ministry of Labour, any standards for what is acceptable air quality in these kinds of schools in Ontario. Is the minister intending to do either of those things?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to assure the member that my ministry will be working closely with the Ministry of Labour. I have asked officials from within my ministry to provide me with information on this issue and the issue that has been raised previously by the member for Hamilton West. I can assure him that I will report back to him further as soon as we have any additional available information.

I do want to point out that the ministry, in terms of its role and its funding arrangements in the construction of new school facilities, expects boards to meet the local building standards and to meet the standards for ventilation systems throughout this province. If we determine that those standards are not being met, we will advise the boards appropriately.

On the other hand, I want to assure the member that officials within my ministry will be providing me with further information as to the extent of the problem and I will share it with him as soon as it is available.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs about the restructuring of Metropolitan Toronto. The minister has asked each area municipality to draw up proposals for ward boundaries. We know the federal government has established independent commissions to develop boundaries in electoral areas. The province has had an independent commission which selected our boundaries.

In the creation of the seventh-largest electoral system in Canada with the creation of Metropolitan Toronto government, how appropriate is it for Metro’s municipal politicians to devise their own electoral boundaries? Would the public not be better served by an independent commission to allocate these changes and award these ward boundaries?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Let me say that this is in response to the municipalities; they could put together and be responsible for the area they know best. I think that is the best route to go. We have been in constant touch with the clerks in the municipalities. They tell me things are moving ahead well and they are going to have their wards in place. I think it is going to be an excellent response to their concerns.

Mr. Cousens: We certainly hope the minister is right because gerrymandering is something we would not want to see.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: It is just a simple fact.

By changing the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, great confusion is going to be created between local councillors and Metro councillors. Citizens will be confused about who is going to do what and when and where in Metro. Local councillors and Metro councillors will be in conflict over areas of mutual responsibility. A war zone will be created between the big Metro council and local councils.

How is the minister going to clear up the confusion of local citizens, remove areas of conflict between councillors and Metro councillors and make certain there is not a war zone between Metro council and municipal councils?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: What we are proposing here is in direct response to the people, to the municipalities, to the municipal councillors. As the member knows, a task force was appointed a year and a half or two years ago, and almost the unanimous response from the municipalities was to create a direct election to Metro and to do those things which the people can relate to. At the Metro council at present, there is confusion. I can tell the member that when this is completed there will be no confusion, because Metro council will now be responsible for a budget of some $2 billion and to some two million people. It is going to answer the response of the people who have asked for these proposals.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Callahan: Mr. Speaker, this is my supplementary; it is to the Minister of Housing. Some time ago in the House I asked the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) whether her newly formed committees would provide alternatives to the matter of abortion.

Carrying through on that, I would like to ask the Minister of Housing, recognizing that one of the largest obstacles, as I understand it, to young people in terms of alternatives to seeking abortion is the matter of affordable housing, whether she would consider favourably applications by church, charitable and whatever other groups wish to dedicate land and to provide that type of housing as a real alternative to what is presently the only option, that of abortion, and allow those people to bring the child to full term and either have the child adopted or continue to raise the child themselves.

Hon. Ms. Hosěk: I would like to assure the member that one of the groups we are particularly concerned about is young women who are responsible for children, which in many cases they are raising alone. They are one of the very major groups of people for whom there is support in housing in Ontario.

Of course, if the churches would be interested in providing church land for the provision of housing through the nonprofit sector, we would be very glad to have them do it. I think that is a very good use of church land and we welcome their participation with the Ministry of Housing in getting support for the nonprofit buildings that, I assume, would result and would give such housing.

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. The minister will be aware that over three million working people in Ontario do not have a pension plan. That represents about 60 per cent of working people and for women workers it is 70 per cent. I would like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that the majority of workers do not have pension plans, is his government considering any proposal at the provincial level that would offer alternatives to these workers so that they can retire in dignity and with financial security?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The treasurers, meeting with the Minister of Finance, have had discussions on improving the provisions of the Canada pension plan. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that those improvements were announced and legislated nationally some months ago. There is also some consideration by an ad hoc group associated with the treasurers and the Minister of Finance for at least some review of the possibility of homemakers’ pensions, although there is certainly no policy commitment by any treasurer I know of to that, other than the interest that this Treasurer has expressed on a number of occasions.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Since attempting to make changes in the Canada pension plan takes a long time and requires the consent of the provinces and the federal government, would it not be appropriate that Ontario show leadership in this field and that it look at the proposal that was made during the last provincial election campaign for an Ontario pension plan that would guarantee an income for people who are retiring, offer them the option at age 60 to retire, and obviously would also have the other positive effect of opening up job opportunities for our young people in the province? Is it not time the minister showed some leadership in this field?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, you may recall that a committee of this Legislature reviewed a report that recommended a separate provincial pension plan some years ago. The report of that committee -- I think the Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself was one of the leading contributors to the thought processes that led to that review -- and the Legislature gave very careful consideration to the alternative the honourable member describes.

The Canada pension plan has been changed to allow retirement at 60 with reduced payments, and the proposal has been made by a number of people, including the finance critic of the member’s own party, that our provisions ought to be brought into line with that. I certainly think that is something that is worthy of continuing review.

HANDGUN REPLICAS

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As the minister is well aware, in the United States and now in Ontario, there has been a growing concern about the sale of replica handguns. We have encountered a tragedy that has taken place in Ontario where an individual lost his life holding such a weapon.

1500

Is the minister, through his ministry, considering investigating the possibility, if not of bringing in legislation, at least of looking at the possibility of working with the manufacturers of such weapons to alter them to such a degree that it can be visibly seen that they are not a true weapon or, as the next step, of banning them altogether?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member raises a question that was first raised in the House in November of last year by my colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann). He raised this matter with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). It was with regard to an inquest in that community as a result of a fatality involving one of these replica guns.

I can say to the member for Durham East that my colleague the Attorney General has written to the federal Minister of Justice regarding the sale and distribution, which is the area in which the honourable member has expressed his concern. The government’s view is that this matter ought to be dealt with, in a sense, in the same national way as utilization of these replica weapons is dealt with, under the Criminal Code.

I ask my friend to refer himself back to Hansard, to the comments of the Attorney General. I will check with the Attorney General and forward to him, if he would like, a copy of the Attorney General’s letter to the Minister of Justice. I am given to understand that has been sent and we believe that to be the appropriate response.

PETITION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wellington.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I hope all members will give their attention to the member for Wellington.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition, which reads as follows:

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

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

“We request the immediate establishment of a royal commission on the Workers’ Compensation Board.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: There is a fair amount of commotion and conversations. Are there any other members wishing to present petitions?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, before calling the order of the day, I just want -- if nothing else, in response to the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) -- to add a more cheerful note by wishing the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) a very happy 60th birthday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry wishes to continue.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is always a pleasure to continue on such an important subject. As I said yesterday, the cart is at the wrong end of the horse and this motion should actually be debated in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

Avant trop longtemps -- je vois que le ministre du Développement du Nord (M. Fontaine) est encore ici; il n'était pas ici hier -- j’aimerais tout simplement le mettre au courant de certaines choses qui ont été dites au sujet de l’accord de libre-échange, au sujet de l’industrie forestière.

M. Paul Zorzetto, préfet de Mattice, directeur général de Claybelt Lumber Ltd. de Hearst, fait un commentaire qui se lit comme suit:

«Je tiens à vous faire part de mon enthousiasme au sujet de cet accord et j’attends avec impatience son application. En tout cas et en tout temps, j’étais d’accord avec la politique du gouvernement canadien sur le libre-échange, la stratégie des négociations, et maintenant je suis très heureux des résultats.»

Une voix: Un homme de Cochrane-Nord.

M. Villeneuve: Un homme de Cochrane-Nord.

En voici un autre de la part de M. Jean-Jacques Carrier, vice-président et contrôleur de Consolidated-Bathurst:

«Nous prévoyons que la croissance économique au Canada sera quelque peu supérieure à la suite de la signature de cet accord. Par conséquent, les dépenses de consommation seront supérieures, ce qui se traduira par une hausse de la demande pour les produits de pâtes et papier.»

C’est ce que dit Jean-Jacques Carrier, vice-président et contrôleur de Consolidated-Bathurst.

I am pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) return today. When I adjourned the debate yesterday, I was quoting some very important Ontarians regarding their thoughts on free trade. I had just finished quoting Charlie Gracey, executive vice-president of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association.

Dairy Farmers of Canada president Jim Waardenburg says as follows: “The dairy farmers’ organization supports the proposed free trade deal with the United States because it guarantees the Canadian government the right to include any dairy products on an import control list. Also, quotas as we have known them stay in place. Supply-managed commodities are protected. What more could the agricultural industry ask?”

Another very prominent Ontarian, Grant Smith, chairman of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, says as follows: “As representative of the OMMB, I am cautiously optimistic. We must continue to work with the federal minister, the Honourable John Wise, to ensure that yoghurt and ice-cream are also included on the protected list from the US. We must maintain historic levels, no more and no less.”

Industry and government must work together. Those are the thoughts of Grant Smith.

A resident of my riding, Bert Sabourin from Monkland, president of the Egg Processors Association of Ontario, is very much in favour of free trade and would very much like to see free trade between provinces. I could go on.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food very recently made a statement. In part, it reads as follows: “The minister made it clear that he is not against an improved trading environment with Canada’s largest trading partner, but he added, ‘As far as I am concerned, a better trading environment should not be built by sacrificing the food processors of Ontario or, for that matter, our energy future, our auto industry or our sovereignty as a nation.’” Obviously, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has not read the free trade agreement, or statements like this would not be originating from him.

Mr. Wise stated as follows in a press release recently -- le ministre fédéral de l’Agriculture, I’honorable John Wise, soutient une fois de plus:

«Les agriculteurs bénéficieront de l'entente du libre-échange avec les États-Unis. Les critiques, a rappelé M. Wise dans une entrevue, disaient que nous ne pouvions pas faire inclure dans l’accord sur le libre-échange l’article du GATT qui protège les régies de commercialisation, mais nous l’avons fait.»

Supply-managed commodities are indeed protected, as I have just mentioned; so aquiculture is getting a fair shake. I am most intrigued, pursuant to a question to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on December 15 last year, where he obtained some information pertaining to a $100-million loss by Ontario agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture and Food advised me that the report may very well be available. To this date, I am still awaiting the report. Is it the Informetrica Ltd. report from Ottawa that was alluded to today in question period?

Is it another report or is it pure speculation and scare-mongering tactics that this government is using? If indeed a report exists, I have requested this report from the Minister of Agriculture and Food and he has not produced it.

1510

Additional prominent agriculturalists made the following statements:

Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency; Nelson Coyle, communications manager: “Chicken farmers can live with the increased quotas, which won’t have an overwhelming impact.” That is the chairman of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency.

The Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Producers’ Association is likewise supportive of the free trade agreement.

The Canadian Pork Council; Martin Rice, executive secretary: “Our initial reaction is that, in the overall, the agreement is positive. It will take some time to assess some of the technical details, but the movement of meat, hygienic inspection, the phase-out of custom user fees and a dispute settling process that will save time and be final --these are all positive to the pork industry. While the industry supports an open trading environment, producers are very pleased that the right to future supply management, if required, is retained, because circumstances could change and it is important that that option remain open.”

These are very prominent Ontarians and Canadians speaking in favour of the free trade agreement which was signed last Saturday.

It is always intriguing that the Premier was offered an opportunity to debate the free trade agreement with the federal Minister of Finance. The Premier, for whatever his reasons, has said: “No thanks. I still maintain opposition to this, but I would rather not debate.” That sends a very clear message that somehow, somewhere this government and this Premier are now starting to realize that the corner they are painted into is getting smaller and smaller.

During the past period of time a number of myths regarding free trade have been perpetrated. At this time I would like to expound a bit on the fact that some of these myths are indeed myths and they were used to make political points at best.

Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rules, generally available social programs are not countervailable. The United States has already examined fishermen’s unemployment insurance benefits in past disputes and found that they are not countervailable. Under both GATT and chapter 5 of the free trade agreement, both countries can impose a sales tax to raise revenue to fund government programs, provided it does not discriminate against imported foods; for example, if all goods consumed in Canada or a province are taxed equally. The federal and provincial governments have long imposed sales taxes which allowed Canada to finance a wide array of social services while maintaining competitive corporate and personal tax systems.

We heard a very good presentation by the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty) yesterday, all wrapped up in the Canadian flag as a former university professor, saying that we had sold our cultural industry down the drain. He was speaking simply to what was and has been in place and remains in place. As the Minister of Culture and Communications of Ontario (Ms. Munro) admitted recently in question period, the cultural industry was indeed hardly affected at all by the free trade agreement. However, the Premier and this government have not seen fit to change their position.

Under GATT, subsidies are recognized as legitimate ways to promote regional development, but countries should not use subsidies which injure other countries. Subsidies are not illegal, only subsidies that cause injuries.

That is most important. I represent a riding in eastern Ontario. A number of my colleagues represent ridings in northern Ontario. These are the have-not areas of the province, and if indeed this government or the federal government were not able to provide special assistance to these different regions, I would certainly not be in favour of a free trade agreement. However, this stays in place. Regional assistance can be provided, providing it simply does not cause injury to another country, and that is fair game.

Under existing United States and Canadian law, subsidies are countervailable by the importing nation only if they are not generally available and if the subsidized product materially injures a similar good in the importing country.

If a subsidy is found to be injurious, we can continue to subsidize if we want to, but our exports will be more expensive in the US market. The decision is ours.

The free trade agreement makes the threat of countervail even more remote. Article 1904 creates a binational panel which will lessen the risk of politically motivated use of trade laws. The process created will be faster, limiting the ability of US competitors to use trade laws to cause uncertainty in the marketplace.

Article 1903 requires that changes to countervail and anti-dumping laws will not apply to the other country unless they are specifically made applicable to the other. Consultations are mandatory with the other party prior to implementation. The binational panel can also be asked to rule on whether the new law is compatible with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the objectives of the free trade agreement.

Again I emphasize, this government has used GATT decisions time and time again as an excuse to fight free trade. They are very distinct and different, and we must recognize the difference between a GATT ruling and the free trade agreement.

Cultural sovereignty; very important. Again, the member for Ottawa South made a very impassioned presentation yesterday. However, article 2005 specifically indicates that, subject to four limited exceptions, nothing in the agreement affects Canada’s ability to pursue cultural policies. Our Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) again confirmed that in this Legislature, pursuant to a question from my colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland).

The exceptions primarily are commercial matters. Article 401, the end of tariffs on musical instruments, cassettes, film, records, etc.; article 1607, fair market value purchase in a forced divestiture of a cultural enterprise; article 2006, copyright protection for cable retransmissions; article 2007, the end of the printed-in-Canada requirement for eligible advertising expense deduction.

Those are the changes. I enjoyed listening to the member for Ottawa South, but really all it was was an impassioned speech, wrapped in the Canadian flag and stating that the status quo was very much the status quo as far as the cultural industry in Ontario and in Canada is concerned.

Are marketing boards at risk? That is a question that, throughout the election campaign, those of us who represented rural ridings were confronted with on a daily basis. I must tell members that I met on numerous occasions with the Honourable John Wise and with people from his office, and I was reassured on every occasion that marketing boards would not be at risk. However, the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and indeed all the Liberal candidates who were running in the September 10 election kept saying, "You will see an end to marketing boards and the family farm and all the rest of it.”

The Minister of Agriculture and Food is still saying that. He had better get up-to-date, because indeed marketing boards are protected and I again will confirm it, as I have on several occasions during this presentation. Article 710 codifies Canada’s existing GATT rights to maintain marketing boards and, I emphasize, create new ones.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This is a fine speech that the member is making and I really think there should be a quorum here to hear it.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts) ordered the bells rung.

1519

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present, would the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry please continue?

Mr. Villeneuve: Canada retains the right to apply import restrictions on agricultural goods where these are necessary to ensure the operation of a domestic supply management or support program. Examples are ice-cream and yoghurt.

Article 706 sets out the increases in Canadian global import quotas on chicken, turkey, eggs, and increases which merely reflect the average levels of actual imports over the past five years.

The government of Canada has announced that two-price wheat in Canada will end with full compensation for grain farmers. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is negotiating to provide some assistance to our wheat producers who will be losing the two-price grain system. It was inevitable and it is happening. Let us be there, as a government, to provide support over a long period of time to cushion the blow that wheat producers in Ontario will be subjected to by the end of the two-price wheat system.

This will eliminate a major handicap for wheat-based food processors while removing the existing tax on domestic bread and other wheat-based products. Two-price wheat was introduced at a time of higher world grain prices in order to stabilize domestic prices. With the collapse of the grain prices in the last few years, it has had the perverse effect of increasing consumer prices.

The Canadian trucking industry was concerned, and justifiably so. However, after the latter stages of the free trade agreement, I believe they can now sleep soundly. The services annex does not include transportation services. Like culture and social programs, the trucking industry is not affected by this free trade agreement.

Indeed, this happened towards the end of the negotiations when the trucking associations presented their concerns. This government could well have been doing that as well, but they were standing there, hooting and hollering, “We do not want a free trade agreement.” They were not thinking positively in any way, shape or form.

“Free trade in apparel and textiles will wipe out the Canadian industry.” That was being said time and time again during the electioneering leading to the September 10 provincial election. Who is afraid of whom? In fact, American fears of our highly competitive clothing manufacturers caused the US to demand a ceiling on the export growth potential of Canadian apparel made from third country fabrics.

A quota on such Canadian apparel exports has been set at a level six times above current trade levels, allowing Canadian apparel manufacturers to continue to increase their exports to the US while limiting American fears that Canadian imports will wipe out the US industry. A similar quota has been set for Canadian textiles made with foreign yarn.

Article 908 states that Canada’s long-time obligation under the agreement of an international energy program to increase oil exports during a period of short supply takes precedence over the free trade agreement provisions on proportional sharing in reductions.

Does the free trade agreement allow for wide open investment in Canada? A good question. This is what the experts who have studied this say.

Articles 1602 and 1607 outline Canada’s right to review significant direct acquisition proposals. Seventy-five per cent of the assets that are currently reviewable by Investment Canada will remain reviewable after the transition period.

Article 1603 recognizes Canada’s continuing right to negotiate product mandate, research and development and technology transfer requirements with prospective investors.

Article 1607 grandfathers all existing foreign investment restrictions, for example, in key sectors like communications, transportation, energy, cultural industries and the like.

Article 1602 recognizes the ability of the competition tribunal to review anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. In various sectors -- for example, agriculture, procurement, trade-related investment measures -- the two countries have agreed to work towards multilateral liberalization in the coming round of GATT negotiations.

Again, I emphasize that I feel GATT is much more of a threat to us as a province and to us as a country than the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement is an opportunity. GATT rulings are what we will have to watch considerably closer.

Au sujet de l’agriculture, le commentaire suivant de la part de Rudy Le Cours est tiré de La Presse de Montréal du 9 octobre: «Un examen attentif des termes qui touchent l’agriculture dans l’accord de libre-échange permet de conclure que le Québec devrait maintenir sa balance commerciale favorable avec les États-Unis.»

Un gouvernement libéral au Québec, un gouvernement libéral en Ontario: un gouverne-ment libéral au Québec qui est très positif au sujet de l’accord de libre-échange, un gouvernement libéral en Ontario qui est très négatif, sans trop savoir pourquoi.

Voici un commentaire du premier ministre du Québec, l’honorable Robert Bourassa, tiré du Devoir du 20 octobre:

«Il n'y a rien dans l’accord qui remet en cause les pouvoirs du Québec sur la protection et la promotion de la culture. Dans ma brève conversation avec le premier ministre canadien, on n’a pas passé tous les points en revue, mais j’ai insisté sur le fait que l’accord ne devait affecter l’autonomie culturelle de la province de Québec.»

Aucun problème avec la culture.

Voici ce que dit Philippe de Gaspé Beaubien, président-directeur général de Télémedia, tiré du Journal de Montréal du 6 octobre:

«Je suis heureux qu’un accord ait été conclu. Le secteur de l’édition a été épargné puisque la publicité sera déductible d’impôt dans les magazines détenus à 80 pour cent par des intérêts canadiens. La seule concession qui a été faite, c’est que les Américains auront droit aux subsides postaux, comme nous.»

Le libre-échange, conclut M. Philippe de Gaspé Beaubien de Telemedia, sera peut-être l’occasion pour son groupe d’aller du côté américain, une position très positive.

Voici un commentaire de la part d’Alain Dubuc, tiré d’une rubrique de La Presse du 10 octobre 1987:

«Quand John Turner a commenté l’entente, on croyait entendre un député rural des années 50. Celui qui fut brièvement premier ministre a carrément affirmé, au mépris des faits, que le pacte de l’auto disparaîtrait, que la culture canadienne perdait toutes ses protections, etc.

«Pierre Marc Johnson, qui partage avec M. Turner l'honneur d’être le chef en perte de vitesse d’un parti en perte de vitesse, adopte la même approche, où l'excès verbal est inversement proportionnel à la maîtrise des dossiers.»

Voici encore une autre citation, tirée de La Presse du 30 octobre: «On comprend mal que les députés libéraux fédéraux, dont l’ancien ministre québécois des Finances, M. Raymond Garneau, ex-président d’une importante institution bancaire, puissent s'opposer à l’accord» du libre-échange

Ce qui suit est tiré du Journal de Montréal du 28 octobre: «Robert Bourassa a fustigé le chef néo-démocrate et le Toronto Star» -- on réalise, même au Québec, que le Toronto Star est impliqué, avec les libéraux ontariens – «pour leur opposition au libre-échange, signalant que ceux-ci devraient regarder au-delà de l’Ontario et constater ce que ça apporterait aux autres régions du pays, avant de dire que le Canada est à vendre avec cet accord.»

Je pourrais continuer indéfiniment. Nous avons des gens très nombreux qui n’ont pas eu peur de se prononcer en faveur de cet accord avec les États-Unis.

Voici un commentaire tiré d’un éditorial de La Presse du 8 octobre:

«Des le début, le Toronto Star a été un point de ralliement pour les adversaires du libre-échange, ce qui a toujours donné une saveur un peu ontarienne à ce point de vue. Sa réaction au projet d’accord avec les États-Unis était donc prévisible. Mais son négativisme, dans un éditorial en première page, est vraiment decevant....

«Le tableau de chasse du Toronto Star est maigre, ce qui me fait penser que le projet d’accord est plutôt bon.

«Allons, Toronto Star! Le Canada va de Victoria à Saint-Jean, non de Kenora à Cornwall, et le ciel ne nous tombera pas sur la tête en l’an 2000.»

Je pourrais continuer, mais je crois qu’on réalise tous qu'il y a des situations dont la province de l’Ontario bénéficierait pleinement, comme l’ont exprimé de nombreux gens qui n’ont pas eu peur simplement de le dire et de le redire. On essaie de convaincre mes collègues libéraux ici, mais ils semblent n'avoir aucune façon. Ils veulent tout simplement suivre, pas à pas, le premier ministre ontarien.

Free trade means greener pastures. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association; Hugh Sharp, president, states that without a free trade deal, the cattle industry here in Ontario, and indeed in Canada, would likely be subject to countervail action, to surtaxes, as the hog industry is at present.

Canadian farmers export almost $3 billion in agricultural products to the United States and sought conditions which would make their access to the US market both more open and more secure. At the same time, they did not want to impair either existing marketing systems for dairy and poultry products or the right to implement new supply management programs and import controls in accordance with our international obligations.

The government thus had three objectives in the agricultural areas: to improve access to farm products, to make that access more secure and to preserve Canada’s agricultural policy instruments. The agreement meets all three objectives, as was stated initially by the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, the Honourable John Wise.

This is an important package of trade liberalizing measures. Agricultural products will benefit from the increased security of access flowing from the arrangements on the dispute settlement mechanism, and nothing in the agreement will in any way affect the right of the federal government and the provinces to introduce and maintain programs to protect and stabilize farm incomes.

The principal trade liberalizing elements agreed to in agriculture are:

Article 701, prohibition of export subsidies on bilateral trade. This marks the first time that any two governments have agreed to prohibitions on export subsidies in the agricultural sector and marks an important signal to other countries around the world.

Elimination of Canadian western grain transportation rail subsidies on exports to the United States shipped through Canadian west coast ports. The provision does not affect shipments through Thunder Bay or exports to third countries through west coast ports.

Articles 401 and 702, the phased elimination of all tariffs over a period of 10 years. Canada is allowed to restore temporarily tariffs on fresh fruits and vegetables for a 20-day period under depressed price conditions, in order to give Canadian horticulturalists an opportunity to adjust to more open trading conditions. This snapback provision applies only if the average acreage under cultivation for that product is constant or declining. Acreage converted from wine grape cultivation is not included in this calculation.

Mutual exemption from restrictions under meat import laws, thus ensuring free trade in beef, veal and pork. Canadian beef and veal producers have in the past found their exports limited as the US triggered its meat import restrictions or sought voluntary export restraints. Both countries have agreed to consult and take measures to avoid diversion, should either country apply its meat import laws against third countries.

The Canadian global import quotas on chicken, turkey and eggs have been set at average levels of actual imports over the past five years.

An exemption for Canada from any future quantitative import restrictions on products containing 10 per cent or less sugar. The US enjoys a waiver under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to impose restrictions if imports are interfering with US price support programs. Without this exemption, further products could be included.

Rights and obligations, including article 11 of GATT, are retained for all agricultural trade not specifically dealt with in the agreement. In other words, if we qualify under GATT, we qualify under the free trade agreement; indeed, the free trade agreement was based on the GATT restrictions. For example, Canadian dairy farmers will continue to benefit from supply-managed programs as they are not affected by the agreement and are consistent with Canada’s GATT obligations.

As I mentioned yesterday in French, and want to repeat in English, I have in the riding I very proudly represent a fairly large dairy processor known as Ault Foods. They are situated at Winchester, and I am sure most of the members in this Legislature have heard of them. Ault Foods produces excellent cheese.

As a matter of fact, there is a gentleman who works there by the name of Réjean Galipeau, a native of St. Isidore de Prescott now living in Winchester. He is a champion. He is not an Ontario champion, not a Canadian champion and not a North American champion, but a world champion cheesemaker. In 1986, he won the world championship in Wisconsin, the dairy state of the United States.

This government would have probably told this gentleman, a champion cheesemaker: “Don’t go to the States. They will not give you a fair deal. Stay in Canada. You have won at the local fairs. That is good enough.” But for this young man it was not good enough and he became a world champion.

Mr. Wildman: You mentioned this yesterday.

Mr. Villeneuve: If the member for Algoma had a world champion in his riding, he would be proud of it too. I want to tell the world that I am very proud of him and we, as Canadians and as Ontarians, can continue to be at the top of the heap.

Mr. Wildman: Don’t be repetitive.

Mr. Villeneuve: I am not being repetitive. I am emphasizing very much in the same fashion as some of the Liberal candidates. Does the member for Algoma recall whether they were repetitive leading up to September 10? World championship cheese comes from Ault Foods in Winchester -- I emphasize that -- in the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and east Grenville.

Mr. Dietsch: We want to hang on to our world-class wine to go with the cheese.

Mr. Villeneuve: Again, I told the member for St. Catharines-Brock yesterday that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario has its hand in the hip pocket of the grape producers through the wine industry and does not want to let go. That is where the problem is. It is a GATT decision we have, not a free trade agreement problem. It is a GATT decision, and we are a signatory to it.

Mr. Wildman: It is all McKeough’s fault.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

1540

M. Villeneuve: «Aucune région du Canada n’a plus à gagner dans l’accord que la province de l’Ontario. L’économie de cette province, c’est dans une large mesure construit sur un commerce avec les États-Unis, qui absorbent aujourd’hui plus de 90 pour cent de nos exportations. Comme plus des deux tiers de ces exportations proviennent du secteur de l’automobile, le gouvernement s’était fixé deux objectifs dans les négociations: préserver les avantages du pacte de l’automobile et élargir les possibilités de croissance de cette industrie. Ces deux objectifs ont été bel et bien réalisés. Compte tenu de l’importance de l’industrie automobile pour les deux pays, un comité select sera établi et chargé de recommander des mesures de politiques gouvernementales et des initiatives privées visant à améliorer la compétitivité de ce secteur.

«L’élimination progressive des droits de douane au cours des 10 prochaines années permettra d’effectuer plus d’activités de transformation en Ontario. Les exportations ontariennes d’électricité seront mieux protégées. Cette province pourra continuer de compter sur un accès garanti au charbon américain pour ses aciéries et ses centrales thermiques et verra le marché américain s'ouvrir à notre uranium.

«Les agriculteurs ontariens, dont la production dépasse celle de toute autre province, bénéficieront d’un meilleur accès au marché américain. D’autre part, les intérêts des producteurs de produits laitiers, de produits avicoles et d’oeufs ont été sauvegardés. Les offices de commercialisation restent en place et la capacité de mettre en oeuvre, au besoin, de nouveaux programmes de gestion des approvisionnements et des restrictions à l’importation est maintenue.

«S’agissant de la bière, l’accord ne modifie aucunement les pratiques canadiennes en existence. L’industrie vinicole, de son côté, bénéficie d’un délai d’adaptation de sept ans avant de livrer concurrence à l’industrie américaine sur un pied d’égalité, une décision qui avait été prise par l'entente GATT.

«De nouvelles perspectives s’offrent également à l’industrie des services financiers. Les industries de services, qui emploient 70 pour cent de la population active au Canada et qui sont concentrées en Ontario, bénéficieront grandement d’un meilleur accès au marché américain pour leurs services et leur personnel.»

Quand nous apprenons que la Coopérative fédérée de Québec favorise l’accord de libre-échange, ça en dit long sur ce sujet pour les industries de transformation. Je ne veux pas me répéter, mais par contre, il faut se rappeler toujours que l’accord du libre-échange nous donne accès à une population de 250 millions, notre plus grand partenaire économique.

I am winding down. I have taken almost enough time but I want to touch on the energy sector prior to giving my place to one of my colleagues.

How does our energy fit into the trade deal? First, Canada is under no obligation to supply energy to the United States. Private energy producers can sell to whomever they want. Presumably many will take advantage of the impediment-free access to the US market envisaged in the deal. This will increase the cross-border flow of oil, gas and hydro sales, but the agreement does not create a continental energy market. It lifts the restrictions that were preventing one from developing.

Second, the Canadian government is not guaranteeing American access to our energy supplies. It is allowing them into the market on the same footing as Canadian buyers. Is there something wrong with supply and demand?

Finally, Ottawa is not giving up its control over Canadian energy supplies. The federal government still has the right to limit energy consumption for reasons of conservation, domestic price stabilization or short supply. The National Energy Board still has the power to ensure that Canadian energy companies offer their domestic customers at least as good a price as their foreign buyers.

The tax on energy departments can continue to offer incentives for oil and gas exploration and development in the north and offshore. In the agreement, Canada relinquishes the right to control the price of energy exports by government action. This means the government would not be able to implement a Canada-first policy insulating domestic consumers from the suffering of an energy-short world.

The actual allocation scheme would have to be worked out at the time of the emergency, but the trade negotiators will draw up a formula for calculating how much energy the US would be eligible to buy. The American proportion of the available supply would be based on its purchases as a percentage of Canada’s entire energy pool, both production and proven reserves, for the 36 months prior to cutbacks.

Alberta and Saskatchewan oil producers are for the most part thrilled with the plan. To them it means a bigger, richer, more stable market for their goods. It holds out the promise of a major increase in the $10 billion worth of oil, gas, electricity and uranium Canada exports to the US annually.

Eastern consumers are understandably uneasy. After being told for a decade by Ottawa that energy self-sufficiency is Canada’s best insurance policy in an uncertain world, they are being asked to give up their protection; and after assuming for years that the west’s oil and gas were part of their birthright, they are being asked to sell their inheritance. This is, of course, not the case.

J’aimerais simplement prononcer quelques mots au sujet d’un reportage fait dans Le Droit du 12 novembre 1987. C’est au sujet de l’industrie vinicole en Ontario:

«Si le litige n’est pas résolu entre les parties impliquées à la date indiquée, le jugement devrait alors, nous dit-on, être rendu public. S’il faut se fier à la tradition, disons que le Canada a la réputation d’être respectueux du traité du GATT.

«La Communauté économique européenne ne digère pas les pratiques commerciales du Canada», et de l’Ontario, «en matière de vente de vins, d’alcools et de bières importés car les régies provinciales limitent l’accès de ces produits et ont une politique de prix qui avantage les producteurs canadiens (c’est du moins le cas de l’Ontario, du Québec et de la Colombie britannique).

«Quand on sait, par exemple, que la majoration de prix (sous forme de taxes) est de plus de 60 pour cent en moyenne au pays pour les vins importés, on comprend facilement l’indignation des producteurs européens qui ont fait pression pour forcer la CEE à réclamer l’arbitrage du GATT.

«Le mot arbitrage est d’ailleurs bien choisi car un jugement rendu par le GATT n’a aucune valeur coercitive. Toutefois, un pays qui ferait fi d’un tel jugement s’expose à des représailles commerciales.

«Dans le cas de la CEE, le Canada accuse les pays membres de subventionner leur secteur agricole d’une façon si généreuse que nos producteurs de l’Ouest et du Sud de l’Ouest n'ont pas les moyens de concurrencer sur le marché européen. Lors du récent voyage de M. Mitterrand au Canada, nos producteurs de la Saskatchewan ont eu l'occasion de l’apostropher sur la question, mais le président de la France est si habile à jongler avec les mots que tout ce beau monde se gratte encore la tête pour savoir» ce qu’il a bel et bien dit.

«En ce qui concerne l’industrie de la bière, sachant qu’elle a été exclue du pacte canado-americain sur le libre-échange, il y a lieu de croire» --

Mr. Dietsch: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I am really enjoying the honourable member’s presentation, but I find it somewhat persistent of him to continually repeat himself with respect to the issue. He did cover this issue yesterday quite extensively in English. I do not understand the need to repeat it today in French. I would certainly like a ruling on that, Madam Speaker

The Acting Speaker: I am sure the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry will be getting to his point immediately.

Mr. Villeneuve: Very shortly. I am on the point of free trade, Madam Speaker, continuously.

Mr. Laughren: A heroic assumption, though.

Mr. Villeneuve: I understand the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) has a little difficulty in accepting some of the things this government is to blame for, and I really do not blame him for getting up on a point of order, because there are things that are just a little bit itchy. However, that is understandable.

Mr. Dietsch: Just stick to the point.

Mr. Laughren: Why should he stick to the point when Sterling Campbell never does?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Villeneuve: I will not touch that one, Madam Speaker.

«Ainsi, faut-il se demander comment Ottawa s'y prendra pour convaincre une province, comme l’Ontario par exemple, d’adopter des mesures qui pourraient inévitablement pousser à la faillite ses producteurs de vin du Niagara, de même que nombre de vignerons de la même région?

«Et que dire maintenant des quelque $670 millions de profits que la Régie des alcools de l’Ontario verse par année (1987-1988) dans les coffres de» la province de l’Ontario?

«En réduisant sa part de profits sur le vin importé (qui est de 66 pour cent),» les deux tiers, Madame la Présidente, «la régie aurait tout de même un manque à gagner qu'une consommation accrue, à cause de prix plus alléchants pour le consommateur, ne pourrait sûrement combler. Le gouvernement d’Ottawa est-il disposé à combler la différence?» La question se pose toujours.

«On voit donc que ce jugement du GATT ne peut donner lieu à des changements précipités dans notre politique canadienne de commercialisation des vins, des alcools et de la bière.»

In summation, I am a member of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. I enjoyed participating in this debate. However, the timing was totally wrong. This motion, motion 8, had no business in this Legislature until the committee on finance and economic affairs had a chance to travel throughout the province and receive unfettered input --

Mr. Miller: That is your opinion; that is personal.

1550

Mr. Villeneuve: That is not personal. That is the way this Legislature always operated until 94 members of the Liberal organization joined it. All of a sudden it became, “We do as we please; thank you.” That is exactly the way things are, no respect at all for the opportunity --

Mr. Callahan: He is in summation. Let’s get on with it.

Mr. Miller: For 42 years it was carried out by the other side; the shoe was on the other foot.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry has the floor. Thank you very much.

Mr. Villeneuve: I know the Liberal members do not like to hear the truth put to them in such a straightforward manner, and I really do not blame them because there are many times when, I am sure, they would like to tell their cabinet members and their Premier the way they really think about this. However, they know they have to toe the party line. I see them and they are doing it. I guess I understand that for the brass ring that was referred to yesterday, it is the only way for it to be achieved.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity of participating in the debate. I look forward to sitting on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs in spite of motion 8.

Mr. Eves: I rise today to participate in what should be a very historic debate in this Legislature, a debate that should determine whether this province is to accept the challenge before us, the challenge of free trade with the largest market in the free world, or whether we are going to simply hide behind a wall of protective tariffs, afraid of change, afraid of competition and afraid to realize our greatest potential.

Yes, this should be a debate of historic proportions; yet it is not and that is because this government has chosen to turn its back on parliamentary tradition. This government has already decided what the position of Ontario will be with respect to free trade. It has made this decision without the benefit of debate and in fact without the benefit of even having read the document before it took its position. David Peterson met with his socialist counterpart from Manitoba and his Liberal friend from Prince Edward Island to form a joint front against the free trade agreement even before the text was made available.

Nothing we say here in this House or later in committee can or will make a difference. We can only hope that the people of this province of Ontario will be as offended by the blatant arrogance of this government as are those of us who sit here every day and have to witness it each and every day, day in and day out.

At the outset, I must voice my displeasure with the tactics that have made this prolonged debate necessary in the first place. I was at the meeting of the House leaders and whips in the government House leader’s boardroom on December 10, 1987. If I may read from the minutes of that meeting, which were typed by the government House leader’s own staff, “For the remainder of the week, motion to refer free trade agreement to finance committee.”

That is not what we see on the order paper here before us today at all. What we see is a substantive resolution, not the agreement that was made among the six people present at that meeting. The government has not honoured the commitment and the agreement it made at that meeting. It chose this instead for some reason or other, be it the government House leader who decided to do this or somebody in the Premier’s office who decided at the last moment that this would be a great idea. We are not privy to that information, so we do not know how the government arrived at coming up with this substantive motion, which in fact denounces the free trade agreement instead of sending it out to committee, which is the way business has operated in this House for well over 100 years.

When we send something out to committee, we actually want to hear what the province and the people of Ontario have to say, but apparently David Peterson and this government do not operate that way. They did not want a simple referral motion. They did not want the committee process to be meaningful. They do not really care what people tell them when they go to committee because their minds are made up. What is the point in spending several thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers’ money --

Mr. Dietsch: Are you going to change your mind after you have listened to the people of Ontario?

Mr. Eves: I may, which is more than I can say for the member.

The simple fact is that the normal way to refer anything out to committee is by a very simple referral motion. We do it here in this House every day, whether it is a piece of legislation, a report of some sort, or in this case the text of the free trade agreement.

Mr. Callahan: More water.

Mr. Eves: I may need that before I am done.

That is the way business carries on in this Legislature and has carried on for many years. I am sure that if a simple referral motion had been dealt with in this Legislature, as was agreed upon by all concerned on December 10 in the government House leader’s office -- the government whip is sitting in the House and he knows that as well as anybody and so does the official opposition House leader.

Mr. Reycraft: I was there too, Ernie.

Mr. Eves: That is what we agreed upon and that is what is worded in the government House leader’s own minutes. Instead, we have a substantive motion which denounces the free trade agreement. As our House leader has indicated to the Speaker --I presume at the end of this debate the Speaker will rule on whether the committee even has any business hearing the free trade text and whether it has any business going out to public hearings, because there will be nothing to refer back to the House. Once they vote on this substantive resolution, they will have already determined where the Legislature of Ontario stands on this very important point.

It would have been very easy to have delayed this debate until after the Christmas break, a time everyone likes to spend with family and friends, but this government, the Liberal Party, chose to flex its considerable muscle in the Legislature and force the House to sit through the break. What we are involved with here is an attempt by the Liberals to circumvent the parliamentary system by undermining the committee process with the introduction of a resolution that, if passed, would render the entire committee process moot on this matter.

Mr. Neumann: That is not the perception the people of Ontario have.

Mr. Eves: No? Maybe it should be explained to the people of Ontario how the government reneged on its word, did not deliver on a commitment it made, so that it could hopefully trot its little resolution to the first ministers’ meeting a few Thursdays ago. From our point of view, that was the purpose of introducing a substantive motion instead of the referral motion agreed upon by all parties at the meeting.

To get back to my train of thought, the government did this simply because the Premier is involved in a personality war with his federal counterpart. He wanted to have a resolution that he could wave in front of the Prime Minister’s nose before he signed the free trade agreement. That would not have had any substantive effect at all upon the free trade agreement. It would simply have been indulging in a political game. I think that speaks volumes about the Premier’s attitude towards this very important issue.

From the very start, this has been nothing more than a political game for the Premier of Ontario. He sat on the fence on this very crucial issue until an election was called. Then he backed himself into a corner so that he could fight the election, not on issues but against the federal government, which at that time was floundering in the polls. Now the Premier is faced with the prospect of having to oppose the agreement simply for the sake of opposing the Prime Minister of Canada.

I am convinced that had there been no election in 1987, the Premier would have been standing in the House supporting this agreement. It is unfortunate because there are many Liberals across the floor who have privately expressed desire to support the agreement. Indeed, it must be very difficult for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), who has the reputation of being a very astute businessman, to prance around the province singing the Premier’s tune.

The Premier of Ontario, who only this past summer travelled around promising a new visionary government for Ontario, seems to have become arrogant and reactionary almost overnight, espousing old values and tired ideas instead of progressive policies that could carry this province into the 21st century as a prosperous economic power.

David Peterson has failed in this area in his role as Premier because there comes a time when a Premier must accept the mantle of responsibility which rests upon his shoulders. There is a time when he must put aside his petty, political motives, when he must move beyond the arrogance of power to do what is right for the people he represents, to give the people of this province the leadership they expect and the future they deserve.

1600

It is not simply a matter of winning elections and playing political games. What we are dealing with in this very important matter is the future ability of Canada to compete successfully in a more volatile world economy. The free trade agreement is an instrument which will help this country to meet this challenge head on. It is time that David Peterson got serious about the issue.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but he has again referred to the Premier by name. The usual procedure in this House is to refer to members by their ministry or as Premier or as the member for such and such.

Mr. Eves: I shall try to keep that in mind, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Eves: The Premier has said on several occasions that it is not free trade he opposes but simply this particular agreement. I do not know whether to believe that or not, since the Premier opposed the agreement before he even saw its contents. However, if we are to take him at his word, I have a couple of questions.

Instead of continually opposing the agreement, why has the Premier not offered helpful suggestions as to how the agreement could be bettered? Why has he not begun now to ensure that Ontario will benefit to the utmost in the very likely event that the free trade agreement is passed into legislation, or is he just going to sit on the fence until it is too late, like he did with softwood lumber? When is he going to introduce measures that will dovetail with federal initiatives designed to assist those who may be displaced during the transition period? If this agreement is so flawed, when is the Premier going to put forth his own detailed alternative?

I suspect that the answers to these questions will never come, because the Premier is apparently content to criticize without being constructive. He has set forth some conditions and criticisms but he has never elaborated. He has never offered detailed improvements. That is because this is about as good an agreement as anyone could have negotiated. It is not perfect, but it is probably the best that could be achieved between two nations.

I would like to take some time to talk about the free trade agreement and to address some of the conditions and criticisms set forth by the Premier of Ontario. During the election campaign, Mr. Peterson laid down six conditions -- pardon me the Premier laid down six conditions --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Eves: -- which he said had to be met before he could lend support to such an agreement. They were good conditions. They were well founded and very similar, by the way to the conditions established by the federal government at the outset of negotiations.

The first condition was that there had to be an effective and acceptable dispute settlement mechanism. We agreed because without such a mechanism the free trade pact would be largely symbolic. Where we disagree is on what can be deemed acceptable. For the Premier, acceptable would be to have the Americans surrender their sovereign right to make legislation with respect to US trade. I see the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) nodding his head in agreement. Obviously, that would not be acceptable to Americans, nor should it be a desirable goal for any Canadian who respects the sovereignty of any nation of the world. An agreement that is going to stand the test of time is an agreement which must be fair.

The Premier has also deemed the dispute settlement mechanism as being ineffective. There are some people who do not agree. I would like to quote some eminent and qualified sources.

The Business Council on National Issues in a news release dated October 21, 1987, stated: “Some critics are suggesting that what has been accomplished in the area of dispute resolution is of little consequence. They are wrong. By international standards, these components of the agreement represent significant progress in the application of the rule of law to a large and complex two-way trading relationship.”

The Honourable Peter Lougheed and the Honourable Donald Macdonald, co-chairmen of the Canadian Alliance for Trade and Job Opportunities, have stated: “Very significantly, disputes in the final instance may be appealed to a binational tribunal that will issue binding judgements. Some have argued that this aspect of the new agreement is of little consequence. We disagree. It brings to the relationship badly needed discipline and provides the basis for establishing over time a single set of rules that will govern the very complex area of subsidies.”

Robert Maclutosh, president of the Canadian Bankers’ Association, says: “I think it is a tremendous achievement. It shows the Americans wanted a deal after all, and it is tremendous news for Canadians. The dispute settlement mechanism is a wonderful development. It is going to make all the difference in the world when there is a dispute over merchandise such as softwood lumber.”

Paula Stern, past president of the International Trade Commission, “The dispute settlement mechanism defined by the accord, in principle, represents a clean progress and should dissipate the number of irritants between the two nations.”

Alan Rugman, University of Toronto, was quoted as saying, “The panel offers a mechanism for Canada to influence and potentially reverse the questionable investigative practices of Americans in their gathering of data and analysis.”

Allan Bellard, executive director, Eastern Fishermen’s Federation, says: “The way I have read the deal is that there will be an independent tribunal which will keep the Americans honest in their interpretation of their own laws, and that is all we can expect, because their own laws aren’t really all that unjust. It is just the way they have been interpreted and applied in the past.”

Our country, too, has a set of countervail and antidumping laws. The laws are there to ensure that we have some recourse in the event of unfair trading practices by any nation. We should not give up the right to retaliate when necessary, and nobody is arguing that point, but neither can we expect the United States of America to give up that right.

The problems that have arisen over the past few years stem from the notion among Canadians that American laws have not been justly applied that American tribunals have succumbed to political pressure. Canadian complaints have not really been directed at the substance of US laws which closely resemble our own, but rather at the application of those laws.

Now we have a very detailed method of ensuring a fair application of both countries’ laws, which discourages capricious action. This is a right that no other country has in its trading relationship with the United States of America, and I can tell members that there will be many countries clamouring for just such a right and just such an agreement.

This dispute settlement mechanism is a very important breakthrough in international relations, one which will likely have a very significant impact on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade discussions. For the very first time, Canadians will have a voice in what is found to be fair trading practice. Canadians will be able to argue their case in front of a binational tribunal instead of being restricted to an American tribunal where political pressures can be brought to bear on the decision.

For the very first time, Canada and the United States will strike a working group whose mandate it will be to develop over the next five to seven years “a set of mutually advantageous rules governing government subsidies and private anticompetitive pricing practices, such as dumping, which are now controlled through the unilateral application of countervailing and antidumping duties.”

Now Canada has a say not only in the review of countervail and antidumping orders but also in the formation of such governing legislation. This is indeed a breakthrough and hardly ineffective, as the Premier has suggested. The Premier has gone further, though, to say that regardless of how good or bad the provisions are, they are not enforceable.

1610

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to everyone in this chamber that this agreement and the dispute settlement mechanism included in it are as enforceable as any treaty in the history of the world. In attacking this agreement as unenforceable, the Premier is in fact saying that the signature of the President of the United States on this agreement is worthless, that every treaty entered into in the world is indeed worthless, because the good word and good faith represented by signatures to a treaty are not worthy of trust.

In so doing, the Premier impugns the very integrity of all international law, for the law of nations has as its foundation nothing more than the good intentions and the good faith of nations which freely enter into treaties. The law of nations is based on agreements and the spirit from which such agreements emanate.

It is a grave thing indeed for a nation to contravene a treaty into which it has entered. I submit that such action would not be taken lightly, as the Premier seems to suggest. The Premier either displays complete naïveté -- to be generous -- or a disgusting degree of arrogance when he stands in this House purporting to pass judgement on the integrity of international law.

I would put to you, Mr. Speaker, that the dispute settlement mechanism does provide enforceability, since a contravention of the agreement could result in the complete termination of the agreement. It provides for an impartial application of current antidumping and countervail duty laws and it provides for the negotiation of better, more agreeable rules. A brilliant piece of work on the part of the negotiators, it is a system which promotes bilateral harmony, conciliation and co-operation, all ingredients which are necessary for a lasting agreement of any kind.

The Premier’s second condition was that the right to reduce regional disparities and promote regional industrial development must be maintained. The government has a whole array of tax measures which can be used to help reduce regional disparities and promote development. The free trade agreement in no way prohibits the use of these measures so long as they are fairly and equally applied to Canadian and American investors alike.

The official opposition would like to say that the free trade agreement would prohibit lower hydro rates for those in northern Ontario. It seems to me that if the government were intent on helping northern Ontarians, it could institute a special northern tax credit that could be determined as a percentage of hydro costs. But this government has not even introduced the tax credit it promised in the 1985 election campaign, an indication that it is not really altogether serious about helping depressed regions in Ontario.

The objects of this agreement are not to inhibit regional growth but rather to prevent flagrant discrimination against the trading partner. I would add that the prosperity which will surely result from the free trade agreement will give our economy the strength to support the social safety net that distinguishes Canada as a tolerant, compassionate and generous nation.

As the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) well knows, the current need for spending in all departments, but particularly in the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services, cannot be met unless we, as a government, can find greater sources of revenue. Unless the Treasurer wants to increase taxes to an intolerable level, he must act to ensure an economic vitality which will produce the needed revenue. The free trade agreement will provide the necessary fuel for that economic growth in Ontario and in Canada.

The third condition stated that the viability of the family farm must be safeguarded. The free trade agreement in no way impairs the ability of the government to establish and maintain marketing systems, price support and farm income stabilization programs. As the Premier will know, there is very little that our two nations can do to effectively liberalize trade in agriculture, since the world market itself is highly distorted by various forms of subsidies. The real progress in this regard will come from the GATT negotiations. However, Canada and the United States have agreed on a number of measures to help liberalize bilateral trade between the two countries.

As a result, a great many farmers will gain substantially from this agreement. Meat import restrictions will be lifted. Technical applications and the capricious application of them, which have in the past acted as barriers to Canadian pork producers, will be reduced and the two countries will work to negotiate a common inspection process.

These measures will give Canadian farmers greater and more secure access to the giant American market. In addition, US grain support levels, long a bone of contention between Canadian and American grain producers, will over time be reduced to Canadian levels, thus allowing for fair competition and a reduction in surplus levels for our farmers.

Canada has also received special consideration with respect to fresh fruits and vegetables. A snapback provision will allow for a restoration of tariffs for a 20-year period during depressed price conditions, provided the total acreage does not increase. It is important to note that this snapback right will not be diluted if Canadian grape growers move into production of fruits and vegetables. This is a one-way benefit. Americans are not given the same recourse.

It would appear that the removal of discriminatory pricing of wine and distilled spirits was inevitable. The federal government foresaw this and sought to negotiate a workable deregulation. I believe to a large extent they were successful.

The family farm has a greater chance of survival under free trade than it would have had in the protectionist environment that will surely follow if this agreement fails to be implemented. Anybody who doubts that only has to look around at what has happened in the last year with respect to the United States-softwood lumber, shakes and shingles, to mention a few.

The Premier’s fourth condition requires a means by which foreign investment can be screened. That is bold statement from an individual who leads the government that has just opened up the securities industry to foreign investment by legislation of its own last year. In doing that, the provincial government robbed the federal negotiators of an excellent bargaining tool, one which could have extracted more concessions and greater assurances of amendment to the Glass-Steagall act governing US financial institutions.

Here is a Premier who is espousing on the one hand, criticizing the means by which foreign investment can be screened, who opened up the floodgates in Ontario with legislation of his own last year. I agree that there should be some means of screening foreign investment, but that process should not be so onerous as to discourage foreign investment. Foreign investment is crucial to the continued growth of our economy in the future, as it has been in the past. The idea is to strike a balance, which I feel the federal government has succeeded in doing.

The fifth condition concerns cultural identity. The Premier has stated that the government must be able to promote and preserve Canada’s cultural identity. There is absolutely nothing in this agreement that prevents this. The agreement is an economic contract between two trading partners. It encourages competition, not assimilation. I would think that competition would strengthen Canadian pride and, thereby, cultural identity.

Surely the Premier would not suggest that Canadian sport teams should refrain from competing in international tournaments for fear they might become less Canadian. On the contrary, such competitive environments foster a greater feeling of national identity, not the other way around. Thus, through free trade Canadians will have the opportunity to show that they can compete and win. The agreement will encourage businesses to become the best in their field. This will be a great source of pride to Canada.

1620

The final, and perhaps most important, condition set forward by the Premier was that the auto pact had to remain intact. Members of this House may well recall that it was the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario that introduced a resolution last spring demanding that the protection of the auto pact be a fundamental requirement of any free trade deal. We felt this was an important position to take, given the significance of the auto sector to the Ontario economy. Over one third of all export trade, worth about $34 billion a year, is in the auto sector. In addition, over 140,000 Canadians are employed in this crucial industry. Thus, no free trade deal could possibly be signed unless the auto pact was protected.

Over the last few years, one of the biggest threats to the survival of the auto pact arose from the fact that some foreign auto manufacturers which were not original members of the auto pact were allowed duty-free access to the United States market by establishing in Canada and thus meeting minimum standards of content. There was little or no consultation with the United States on this matter. As well, Canada was offering duty remissions and waivers on goods imported for the express purpose of vehicles being exported to the United States. Many feel that this was a very unfair subsidy.

While these measures may have created a few jobs, they placed thousands of jobs at risk because the Americans viewed these practices as serious breaches of the intent of the agreement, which, of course, was to strengthen the North American automobile industry. As a result, several Americans had begun to press for a renegotiation or termination of the auto pact, as well as countervail action.

The free trade agreement has endeavoured to re-establish a sense of fair play with respect to automobiles. No longer will there be a back entrance into either auto market. Provisions specifically enumerate the companies which will receive auto pact status, along with their benefits and their obligations. Rules of origin have been changed to strengthen the North American content of vehicles traded under the auto pact. Previously, many indirect costs of production, such as overhead, were included in the requirement that 50 per cent of the invoice price of vehicles traded be incurred in North America. This has been changed so that only direct costs of production can now be used in the calculation.

It has been estimated that this will result in approximately 20 per cent more North American sourcing and production. While American firms will have access to the Canadian market, Canadian manufacturers of parts, tires and other auto byproducts will have unimpeded access to the much larger US market. It is a situation of friendly competition which will result in stronger, more efficient manufacturers able to compete in the tougher world market. In addition, all the auto pact safeguards will remain, encouraging offshore producers to increase production in Canada.

In order to further harmonize relations in the auto sector, a special blue-ribbon panel has been established. The panel will work to ensure more efficient planning so the North American auto-mobile industry can become more competitive. The panel will also deal with problems unique to the auto industry. It is a move which will help reduce tensions that, if not checked, could threaten the very existence of the auto pact.

What has been negotiated is an improved automobile pact, one which creates a fair and competitive trading environment. The agreement does not seek to give one country an unfair advantage over the other, which is what the Premier would prefer. The Premier seems to feel, for some reason, that Canadian manufacturers cannot compete on an equal footing with US manufacturers, that for some reason we have to be afforded a handicap.

The official opposition feels that US manufacturers with investments in Canada will pull out now that the government does not require them to establish in Canada. Perhaps they could take a course or two in economics. Businesses operate even when not subjected to government coercion. Some businesses actually operate because it is profitable to do so.

Since 1965, when the auto pact was first signed, the Big Three automobile producers have consistently exceeded the Canadian value added provisions of the agreement. In the last seven years alone, General Motors has invested over $7 billion in Canada. That is hardly about to be abandoned. Businesses locate in Canada because it is profitable to do so, because our labour force is one of the most efficient, best educated and skilled in the world. We should not be ashamed of that and we should not be afraid to capitalize on that.

We have seen that the criticisms of the free trade agreement made by the Premier simply do not stand up to cross-examination. His opposition to the agreement is based either on an ignorance of the contents of the agreement or sheer political partisanship, and I am not sure which is worse for the people of Ontario.

I would say to this House that we need not be shy in our approach to our trading relationships. We have strong and vibrant industries in Ontario, a skilled and efficient labour force and a wide range of excellent products and services. If we cannot compete and succeed in the United States market, we will surely fail in the world market.

Canada is a country that was built in the face of adversity. It is a country that was carved from the wilderness in defiance of the odds. Canadians have never shrunk from a challenge. We have risen from the status of a colony to that of a world leader in many areas throughout the world, respected for our tolerance, our compassion, our generosity and our prosperity. We must not stagnate now.

Trade and investment are essential to continued progress. Ontario has over the years benefited greatly from foreign trade and investment. Over 90 per cent of our exports are to the United States of America, and foreign investment is higher in this province than in any other part of the country.

Ontario has not become less Canadian because of this. On the contrary, Ontarians are fiercely proud of their nation. It is no surprise that Ontario’s economy is one of the top performers in the entire world, far surpassing its neighbouring American states.

But while Ontario chugs along, much of the rest of Canada lags behind. It is our duty as Canadians to ensure that all parts of this country are afforded the same opportunities as Ontario, that the people of western Canada and the people of eastern Canada are given the same chance to expand their horizons that we in our great province have been given.

It would simply be small-minded and selfish to deny the rest of Canada the opportunity for prosperity that already exists in Ontario. It is important to note that a sharing of the wealth will in no way diminish Ontario’s economic progress. Indeed, it is highly likely that Ontario will benefit the most from any free trade agreement.

This is a good agreement. It is good for Ontario, it is good for Canada and, yes, it is good even for the United States of America. It is important that everyone benefit, for an agreement which is not fair will not last. Thus, we should not be ashamed that the United States will benefit as a result of this agreement. It is not necessary for one party to lose for the other party to gain.

The free trade agreement signed by the Prime Minister and President Reagan on January 2, with its basis in trust, promotes fairness and mutual advantage and thus should stand the test of time. It is an agreement which will lead the world in trade liberalization. It sends out a message to the rest of the world that protectionism is no longer an acceptable form of nation-building. This is very important for Canada, since 30 per cent of our national income is derived from trade. The spirit of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trades is woven throughout the fabric of this free trade agreement. The spirit which encourages the reduction of tariff barriers and promotes harmony and international relations.

1630

The free trade deal is a watershed agreement to which other nations already aspire. Israel, which in 1985 concluded a free trade agreement with the United States, has already expressed a desire to upgrade to the standard of our agreement. No other trade deal is as broad in scope as this deal. It covers all sectors and breaks ground in the area of services, investment, intellectual property and business travel. It includes a binding dispute settlement mechanism and a means for developing new regulations to govern subsidies, countervail and anti-dumping measures. It is truly unique and it is an accomplishment worth bragging about.

The Premier of Ontario has, in his infinite wisdom, decided to oppose it. It is difficult to understand. He says this agreement is no good, yet he fails to put forth any alternatives. It is a paradox. The Premier of this province speaks of technological excellence, yet he seeks to deny our high-tech industries the access to American markets that they need to subsist.

The Premier speaks of the need to rejuvenate the family farm, yet he seeks to deny red meat producers the access to the American market that will enable them to survive.

The Premier speaks of the need to protect the auto pact, yet he refuses to eliminate the irritants which threaten its very existence.

The Premier speaks of the need to promote Canadian culture, yet he cowers behind a wall of tariffs, afraid to promote Canadian business talent to the largest audience in the world.

The Premier speaks of the need to enhance our social programs, yet he seeks to deny the prosperity necessary for the very maintenance of those programs.

The Premier speaks of strengthening regions, yet he seeks to deny these regions the same opportunities that have strengthened Ontario.

The Premier speaks of his desire to make Ontario world class. Yet he feels we cannot compete and refuses to give us the chance.

It makes one wonder whether the Premier deserves to be the Premier of this great province, whether he can fill the shoes of the men who walked before him and whether he has the vision to carry this province into the 21st century.

We are at the crossroads. We can continue to move forward or we can turn the page on progress by becoming insular. The Progressive Conservative Party believes that we cannot allow the Canadian entrepreneurial spirit to be stifled and die under the burden of government. We must unchain business by opening up the trading process so we can assure economic expansion and the social advantages and job opportunities which arise from such expansion.

I would ask, indeed I would implore the Premier to place aside his partisan feelings and support this deal. It is a deal that Canada needs if it is to ensure economic expansion and the social advantages that are born from it.

Mr. Hampton: I consider it a privilege to take part in this debate because I think that we all recognize what is happening in terms of the negotiation of a free trade agreement and in terms of the possible impact of such an agreement. It may be one of the most important decisions that this country and in the case of Ontario, this province, will enter into.

Even the discussions have generated a debate in our society and across this province which we have not seen in some time on general economic issues.

I do not think it will come as any surprise to the House that, as an individual from northern Ontario and as a member of the New Democratic Party caucus, I cannot support the agreement. I can only speak against the agreement that has been reached by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States.

However, to merely say that I am forced to speak against it is not enough. I want to put clearly on the record why I think this agreement is a very bad agreement for Canada, a very bad agreement for Ontario and, most of all, a very bad agreement for the people who live in northern Ontario.

It is very interesting to examine the kinds of arguments that have been put forward and the kinds of comments that have been made by those who want this Mulroney-Reagan agreement to be supported. For instance, a well-known Liberal, Donald Macdonald, who supports this agreement, has said, “The opponents of the deal want Canada to be a sheltered workshop for the inefficient.” That was a quote by a former federal Liberal cabinet minister, his view of the deal.

It has been said by the Prime Minister and some in his cabinet, and especially by the Conservative Premier of Saskatchewan, that those who have benefited from free trade, i.e. Ontario, want to deny their advantages to the rest of the country. One of the advantages they refer to is the auto pact. They mistakenly believe the auto pact is, per se, free trade.

They also say the regions can now free-trade their way to prosperity. Indeed, I hear that reference a lot with respect to northern Ontario, that northern Ontario will somehow, under free trade, do better than northern Minnesota has done. Northern Minnesota, if you care to venture through it, is decimated. You will find more iron ore mines that have been shut down, more paper mills that have been shut down, more pulp mills that have been shut down, more people on welfare, more people unemployed.

Mr. Harris: That is because we are out-competing them. We are driving them out.

Mr. Hampton: No, it has a lot to do with the economics of Ronald Reagan. The member for Nipissing raises an interesting point. I just want to refer to --

Mr. Harris: There is free trade in all those things and Canada out-competes them.

Mr. Hampton: I want to point something out to the member for Nipissing. The Americans under Ronald Reagan, great free traders that they are, have ended up in a situation where, it is true, they have lost a number of their industries: they have watched their steel industry be shut down; they have lost major elements of the appliance industry; they are watching certain elements of the auto industry being taken away. It is not because there is an inability to compete. It is because the American strategy, the strategy which Mr. Mulroney wants to follow and which the Conservative counterparts here want to follow, is fundamentally an unsound strategy, because there is no plan to the strategy. It throws everything up in the air and the pieces fall where they may.

Where have the pieces fallen in the United States? It is very interesting. In the United States, nearly 60 per cent of the new jobs created between 1979 and 1984 paid less than $7,000 a year in 1984 dollars. That is the kind of strategy the Conservative Party wants to tie us into. That is according to a study commissioned by a US congressional joint committee. In the period between 1973 and 1979, fewer than one fifth of the new jobs in the United States paid that little.

In other words, the American economy is going down. Why do we want to be tied to an economy that is going down? Why do we want to be tied to an economy that is now the world’s largest debtor? Why do we want to be tied to an economy which has huge domestic deficits? The world financial markets are commenting on those huge domestic deficits and saying: “This is an economy that does not run. This is an economic system that needs some incredible restructuring.” Why do we want to tie ourselves to somebody who is in those desperate kinds of straits? That is one of the questions, I think, that has to be answered. Why do we want to tie ourselves into that?

1640

Mr. Harris: If they are that bad we might take them over.

Mr. Hampton: Yes, I suppose in the member’s logic we are going to take over something that is 10 times as large as us and an economy that is 10 times our size. This is the Conservative logic again.

The interesting thing, again, is that the Conservative Party says on the one hand: “Look, this is the only country we can sell to, this is the only market we can compete with, the only one we can get into. As desperate as they are, as terrible as their situation is, let us throw all our eggs in one basket and let us go for it, no matter what we have to give up. If we have to give up control over our energy resources, if we have to give up control over investment, let us throw them in and not worry about it, because they are in a desperate state and we are also going to be in a desperate state.” That is what the Conservative argument boils down to.

I think a couple of things have to be looked at very carefully. The federal government and the Conservative members here in the House are saying that if we enter into a free trade agreement with the United States, that will solve all of our problems. That is essentially what they are saying. If we do that, it is clear sailing. Consumers will get lower prices, we will have a larger market to sell in and the Americans will not impose countervailing duties or unfair tariffs on us.

That is not at all the case. The deal that has been presented frustrates, in many ways, the economic tools we have used in the past and the economic tools that other countries, other successful trading nations such as Japan, such as the Sweden and such as West Germany, have used very successfully in the last 20 years to find their way on to the world trading market.

Among the things this agreement would prohibit are, for example, future attempts by Ontario or, indeed, by Canada to upgrade resources mined in this province by requiring processing prior to export. This will not be permitted under this agreement. We will have to share our finite resources, whether they be hydro, in the case of Ontario, or natural gas or oil from the west, with the United States. We will be unable to provide Canadian manufacturers with the lower prices for energy that we have customarily provided them with. In fact, we will have to charge our producers in Canada the same price we charge the Americans.

The incredible competitive advantage that we are going to give up in this has to be referred to. I wrote to the local Ontario Hydro representative in my area, in the riding of Rainy River, and I asked him to send to me -- if Hydro had the statistics on file -- comparisons on hydro rates: monthly industrial electric bills comparing major cities in Canada and in Ontario with major cities in the United States, Portland, Oregon being one of them.

The interesting thing that comes out is that if we compare Winnipeg, with Portland, Oregon, for example, Portland, Oregon, in terms of industrial hydro rates, pays twice. The cost is double what it is in Winnipeg. If we go further, say to Tampa, Florida, it is triple Winnipeg and it is almost triple what most large Ontario cities pay. If one goes down the map to New York, it is more than triple. That is the competitive advantage that we give up by agreeing to this deal. We say to them, “We are going to charge you the same rate that we charge for power here in Canada.”

As I look around northern Ontario, I see pulp mills. Why did they locate in northern Ontario? One of the reasons, of course, is the adequacy of the timber supply, but the other reason is lots of inexpensive hydroelectric power. What is it going to mean if we have to charge the same rate for the power we sell to mines and mills in Ontario that we charge American industrial users when we export the power? It is going to increase our costs. More than that, the agreement also says that whatever our energy supplies -- electric, natural gas or Ontario -l- we have to share them, whatever the amount of our supply.

Even if we have a shortage within Canada, we must share them with the Americans, which means that over time, when we do face energy shortages within Canada, we will still have to export what we have customarily exported to the United States and then buy even more expensive power from somewhere else. Our costs of production are going to go up even higher. How could anyone say that is a good deal? That is a giveaway, a total and unabashed giveaway. It is a shame that somebody would even try to call this a good deal.

Going beyond energy resources, this deal essentially says that the only method we can use to develop our economy is trade with the United States, trade on its terms. We are forbidden, for example, to engage in some of the industrial development practices that have been so successful in the past. It is very interesting to watch the Conservative Premier of Saskatchewan come to Ontario and say, “You guys have a good deal with the auto pact. That was a good deal.” Then he says, “And that is free trade for you.’’ The auto pact is not free trade; it is managed trade. There are quotas. There are limits. There are requirements as to production.

It is very interesting to contrast the auto pact and the limits and stipulations set out there -- and Ontario has done well under that, and Canada has done well under that -- with what has happened with the agreement that exists with respect to farm implements. In fact, we have free trade in farm implements. There are no limits set, there are no requirements as to production, and every year since 1948 we have run a deficit in farm implements trading. There is free trade on the one hand, managed trade on the other.

This agreement would outlaw for all time any kind of auto pact in the future. In fact, the Canadian negotiator of the deal, Simon Reisman, says this himself. Simon Reisman actually agrees that the benefits of a trade deal like the auto pact will no longer be possible for any sector in Canada. I will quote him. On October 11, 1987, in the Toronto Sun he said, “I would say that never again in a commercial relationship with the United States will there be a division of the market in that way” --and he is referring to the auto pact -- ”a division of the market where we say so much of the production has to take place in Canada.” That is what is precluded from ever happening again under the terms of this agreement.

There are other things which are precluded under this agreement. We have to share our energy. We can no longer say: “You must process some of the ore in Canada. You must process more of the material in Canada.” The Americans, in their explanation of the agreement -- and I refer here to the US government briefing notes to the US Secretary of the Treasury -- said henceforth Canada will impose no export requirements, no local content requirements, no local sourcing requirements or import substitution on US investors, and will refrain from placing requirements on third-country investors as well.

That is the Americans’ interpretation of this agreement, and that is the interpretation we are going to be faced with as soon as we come to a disagreement on a point. Then we are going to be left, having given everything away, to argue with someone who has an economy 10 times our size and 10 times as powerful as ours? That is their interpretation of this agreement.

1650

I want to go into a couple of other matters that I think come out of this agreement. As far as I can see, this free trade agreement provides no protection to resource-rich parts of Ontario or resource-rich parts of Canada, and when I say resource-rich, I emphatically refer to northern Ontario. That is in fact what we have done traditionally in northern Ontario, that is what we still do, and until the present provincial government decides that it wants to pursue an industrial strategy of secondary development in northern Ontario, that is what we are going to continue to do, to harvest the resources and ship them out.

This agreement provides no protection whatsoever to the resource industries of northern Ontario because it does not have a dispute settlement mechanism and because it does not outlaw American antidumping rules. So we are still going to see the softwood lumber tax, a 15 per cent export tax. We are still going to see things like the shakes and shingles tax which was imposed. We are still going to see the possibility of all kinds of penalty tariffs and penalty taxes forced upon our producers when we do outcompete the Americans, as we did outcompete them in softwood lumber and in shakes and shingles.

Finally, I want to refer to something that I think the federal government has to come clean on with the consumers of Canada, specifically the consumers in a large-populace province like Ontario.

I represent a border community. What has been told to the people in my communities by the communities along the Ontario-Minnesota border is that once we have free trade, you will be able to go across the border and buy up all that cheap stuff in the United States and then come across the border and pay no duty.

That is absolutely untrue. The only goods you would be able to buy duty free will be goods that are manufactured in the United States. The federal government currently has people believing that they will be able to go across into the United States, buy a made-in-Japan television and bring it across the border, paying no duty. You will pay the same duty you pay now. As well, you will continue to pay the 12 per cent federal sales tax and the seven per cent Ontario sales tax. They have not come clean with the people of Ontario on that. It is not a bargain at all.

In closing, it is only fair that we refer to what the US trade representative, Clayton Yeutter, said at the conclusion of the original negotiation of the agreement. I quote him from the October 22, 1987, edition of the Toronto Star. He said: “The Canadians don’t understand what they have signed. In 20 years they will be sucked into the US economy.” That was Clayton Yeutter, the US trade representative. That was his comment publicly, following the negotiation of the original agreement.

I cannot support what the federal government has negotiated, but I want to say just a few things, again in closing, about the resolution that is before the House. It is not strong enough. It does not condemn this agreement in strong enough terms. It does not set out definitively enough all of the ways in which Ontario’s economy, Ontario’s environment, Ontario’s culture, Ontario’s social system is going to be negatively affected by this agreement.

An hon. member: It doesn’t say what the government is going to do about it.

Mr. Hampton: And it does not say what this government is going to do about it.

This deal, the deal that Prime Minister Mulroney has negotiated with the President of the United States, is a bad deal; it is a giveaway. We should criticize the federal government because of it, but we should also criticize the government here for not taking a strong enough stand in opposing this agreement. Because, if anything deserves to be opposed in the history of Ontario and in the history of Canada, this deserves to be opposed.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I rise to speak in this debate, not with a great deal of enthusiasm, because I think we have wasted a lot of time since the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter) introduced his resolution on December 15. I think, in hindsight, it would have been better if he had introduced a different type of resolution.

To me, it seems rather pointless to have this resolution, as drafted, sent to the Prime Minister of this country after the fact that the trade issue has been signed, and also it will be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to have public hearings on the free trade initiative.

What is the point of having hearings when we have already concluded the results? I think it is very similar to a judge passing sentence first and then having a trial to determine if there is any guilt. It does not make sense. Surely, the member for Wilson Heights, in all good conscience, will withdraw the resolution before six this afternoon.

I do accept the fact, however, that we have a debate and we might as well get on with it. One thing that is a concern of mine, that I feel quite strongly about, is the fact that there is so much uncertainty, and even fear about this initiative.

In the Toronto Star of Tuesday, December 15, there are arguments for and against free trade and there are about six pages of prominent people taking both sides of the issues and giving all the reasons why it is either a good deal or it is not a good deal. The concern I have is that so many of these people are extremely intelligent and have all kinds of resource material to determine if indeed, they are making a wise decision. I find it extremely difficult to understand how there can be such a difference of opinion on one issue.

I speak on behalf of the people I represent, because many of them are in the same situation. They do not know which side to believe, and it is very unfortunate that we are not enlightening them in some manner. We have taken positions that certain parties are totally opposed to it and other parties are totally in support of it. There surely is a happy medium somewhere in between that reasonable people could come up with reasonable areas of resolution.

During the last election I called on a senior citizens’ home in a small village in my riding and I spoke to quite an elderly lady. Her only question was on the free trade initiative. She was not concerned about health, doctors or many of the other concerns that usually seniors are rightly concerned about, but she was concerned about the free trade initiative. This is bothersome to me, that people should have this fear and this uncertainty about something that is so important to our country.

I might mention that I had the honour and privilege to serve on the subcommittee of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, chaired by the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke). David, I was paying a compliment to you. I said that --

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order. I would ask the honourable member to refrain from speaking directly to the honourable members across from him. I am sure that Mr. Cooke will hear your comments from time to time, but would you please refrain from naming him in the House as well as making your comments directly to him. Thank you.

1700

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I do apologize, Madam Speaker, but I could not get his attention.

On July 10, 1986, the members of that committee, under the chairmanship of the member for Kitchener, signed a report on free trade, Ontario Trade Review, which highlights many of the areas of concern that have been expressed by the members for the last several days. I am not sure if members have had the opportunity to read the report. If they have not, that is their loss, because it is an excellent document. If any member does not have a copy, I am sure the member for Kitchener would provide one.

We made many recommendations, and I would like to refer to a couple.

Recommendation 8 states: “Given that the government of Canada and the government of the United States are engaged in trade negotiations, the goal of these negotiations should be to reduce or eliminate barriers to trade between our two countries in a mutually beneficial manner.”

I am sure there is not any member in this assembly who would not concur with that recommendation.

Recommendation 9 states: “Any discussion should be a forum for reinforcing the good trade relationship that has historically existed between Canada and the United States and for clarifying the fact that Canada has consistently been a fair trader in the United States market.”

That, too, was supported by all members.

Mr. McLean: Signed by the chairman, was it?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: An excellent chairman.

I come from the riding of Wellington and it is a rural riding, basically. We surround the city of Guelph, as the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) well knows.

Recommendation 22 states: “While the agricultural sector is under discussion in the bilateral trade negotiations, this committee does not believe that these negotiations will solve the difficulties that exist in the bilateral trade of agricultural products. Because of the particular problems and sensitivities of the country’s and the provinces’ agricultural sectors, Ontario should not enter into any agreement that harms its agricultural programs.”

During the last election, I made a commitment to the people I represent that I would not have any part of a trade initiative that did harm to the marketing boards which are the backbone of our agricultural sector. This free trade deal that has been presented and finalized just recently does not do that.

I might mention that certain members of the Legislature have suggested that the agricultural sector is opposed to the free trade initiative. I would just like to read into the record a joint statement by the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board and the Ontario members of the Canadian Meat Council.

“Ontario’s red meat industry supports bilateral trade negotiations. The Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board and the Ontario members of the Canadian Meat Council have all expressed strong support for the bilateral trade negotiations between Canada and the USA. The three organizations, each affirming previously stated positions, feel that it is important to Ontario’s economy to again emphasize support for the current free trade negotiations.

“The cattle and hog producers share the view that free movement of live animals and meat is essential to vibrant, progressive agriculture in the province. As well, Ontario’s red meat processors depend on ready, unimpeded access to the US market to maintain the production and marketing efficiency and the resultant jobs.

“The red meat industry is an important source of income for Ontario farmers. The province is the largest red meat producer in Canada. In farm receipts alone, cattle produce in excess of $1.1 billion and hogs another $600 million, a major source of income for 35,000 producers and their families. About 20 per cent of cash receipts to the red meat industry come from export markets, mainly the USA.”

That is a total of $320 million from the United States.

This joint statement was signed by Dave Adams, for the Canadian Meat Council, Graeme Hedley, the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association and Dave McDonald, the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board.

On the same subject, I would like to read just one excerpt from a letter received from Hugh Sharpe, president of the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association. This is a summary of his letter.

“The Canada-United States free trade agreement will be positive for the Ontario and Canadian cattle and beef industry. The real alternatives for Canada are to forge ahead and confirm this bilateral trade arrangement or be prepared to fight an ongoing economic guerrilla war to retain access to the United States market.

“Ontario is the second-largest fed cattle producing province in Canada and the largest red meat producing province. Receipts from cattle and hogs combined account for one third of farm cash income in Ontario. The industry has demonstrated its ability to compete. The agreement should ensure long-run stability for the industry, rather than fighting a rearguard action to preserve access. In our view, there is only one alternative, and that is to work towards confirming and improving, where possible, the Canada-United States free trade agreement.”

I think that is one of the mistakes we have made in this Legislature. We should have been spending more time trying to improve and come up with positive suggestions instead of simply dealing with a resolution that should not have been presented in the first place.

I would like to make reference to a comment made by the member for Wilson Heights in response to a question from my leader pertaining to the free trade initiative. The honourable minister replied to a question that was asked about the support for the free trade initiative, and my leader suggested that seven out of 10 premiers in this country support the pact and he goes on to mention some of the others. The question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was, “Tell us the names of the people who support your position.” The honourable minister mentioned: “We have organized labour virtually unanimous in support. We have the organization of churches in Canada. Virtually every church organization Canada-wide is opposed to the free trade initiative.”

That is very worthy and I can certainly appreciate their support from those two organizations, but I wonder what the minister and the government did about the position on Sunday shopping by the same people, who violently oppose it. Do they listen to them on one hand if it suits their purpose, and disregard their advice on the other hand?

Mr. McLean: What was the minister’s name? Was that Kwinter?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I cannot mention it. Madam Speaker will not allow it.

Mr. Wildman: Go ahead, Jack.

1710

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Oh, better not.

Further on the agriculture sector and pertaining to the agriculture subsidies, parties to the agreement “agree that their primary goal with respect to agricultural subsidies is to achieve, on a global basis, the elimination of all subsidies which distort agricultural trade, and the parties agree to work together to achieve this goal, including through multilateral trade negotiations such as the Uruguay round.

“Neither party shall introduce or maintain any export subsidy on any agricultural goods originating in, or shipped from, its territory that are exported directly or indirectly to the territory of the other party.”

When we were in Washington, we met with some of the top people in the agricultural sector and they gave us some detailed information on the United States farm bill that was passed in 1985. I will just read one section on this:

“The 1985 US farm bill was debated at a time when US farm commodities had become uncompetitive in world markets and declining farm income was contributing to severe US farm financial crisis. As a result of sagging exports, large volumes of US grains had accumulated in government storage programs and, in an attempt to deal with the large US grain stocks and declining farm incomes, the US passed the 1985 farm bill which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce US market prices to more competitive levels, while at the same time protecting farmers’ incomes by increasing direct government payments to farmers. For Canadian farmers, lower US market prices mean lower Canadian prices and some additional pressures on farm revenues that are already in trouble.”

That is one reason we need an agreement with the Americans: We cannot compete with US farm subsidies. The American government cannot estimate the cost of this bill. They estimate it will be anywhere from $15 billion to $30 billion a year. It is one of the most costly bills in US history, with the exception, of course, of the defence budget.

Some people feel we have two choices, that we can either accept free trade or not. The third option is the status quo. I think one of the problems we have is that if we could retain what we have now, many people would be satisfied, but with the mood of Congress and with 150 or 200 protectionist bills in Congress, I think the status quo is not there any longer. We have to either opt into this free trade agreement or opt out of it.

Just in closing, I would like to mention a few of the very prominent people who do support the initiative. In agriculture, Bill Vaags, president of the Canadian Pork Council, states: “We have a major market in the US. I am very glad we’ll be able to expand rather than the reverse.”

Stan Wilson, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association: “The outline of the agreement looks very positive in terms of its impact on the red meat industry. It is of the utmost importance to our industry that we have unrestricted access to the American market.”

Jim Waardenburg, president of Dairy Farmers of Canada: “The dairy farmers’ organization supports the proposed free trade deal because it guarantees the Canadian government the right to include any dairy products on an import control list.”

Bill Duke, president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association: “I think Canada now has a better chance of retaining current access and getting further access. A dispute settling mechanism that involves both countries is likely to be fairer, and it is especially encouraging that the two countries have agreed to jointly work out new trade rules.”

Dean Wilson, president of the Automotive Industries Association, “We made a survey over a year ago, and the consensus of our membership favoured free trade.”

Richard Garlick, Consumers’ Association of Canada: “There is no question that the free trade agreement will favour consumers. It is just a matter of when the different elements of the deal start kicking in.”

Jack Carr, economics department, University of Toronto: “It will help consumers because it should lower prices. There will be more employment. Wages will be higher. There will be more benefits.”

Mr. McLean: The government doesn’t listen to those guys any more.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: My colleague says he does not think the government is listening and I am afraid he is right.

On behalf of the small business people of this province, I would like to quote from John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. “I think it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Canada and one that will help us win European and Asian investment.” I think that is what it is all about. It is more business, more jobs, an opportunity for Canadians to enhance their opportunity to develop and prosper.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of joining in this debate.

Mr. Farnan: This afternoon I want to concentrate my remarks in terms of the process by which this deal has gone forward. It is a most important issue. Indeed, it is probably the most important issue facing our country. This debate taking place today, as it does, after the fact that the treaty has been signed is probably as indicative as anything else of the manner in which this deal has been hastily put forward.

The Canadian Catholic Bishops Commission for Social Affairs last month issued a resolution and requested the federal government to ensure more democratic public debate on the proposed Canada-US free trade agreement. Bishop Ouellet of Rimouski said the government must enable all Canadians to have an effective voice in the final decision. To me, that perhaps is the matter of greatest concern.

Here we are facing a tremendous decision. I think the previous speaker, the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson), very ably put forward the idea that there are conflicting views. There are people we can respect in terms of their background and expertise in presenting these views. The people of Canada and of Ontario have not had the opportunity to examine and weigh this, and yet, without any mandate, this has been foisted upon Ontario and upon the country. If the people of Canada were to review and ask themselves the question what they would have anticipated from this new government, there was nothing in advance that would have indicated to them that they were going to be faced with this free trade deal.

Let me quote from a couple of the more prominent Conservative members in Ottawa. Mr. Mulroney is quoted: “Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911. They would do so again in 1983.” This was when he was running for the leadership of the party. “Canada must increase its share of total world trade, which has dropped 33 per cent in the past two decades.” That was the present Prime Minister campaigning as leader of the Conservative party. Again, in the campaign in which he won his mandate to govern, he did not mention free trade.

Mr. Clark had this to say: “Unrestrained free trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear,” industries might I say that are very important to Cambridge. “Before we jump on the bandwagon,” he continued, “of continentalism, we should strengthen our industrial structure so that we are more competitive.”

1720

Michael Wilson had this to say: “Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naïve. It would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally.”

How can the people of Canada have trust in the same individuals who condemned free trade so absolutely, so recently, and yet who want to push ahead with free trade now? The manner in which they want to push ahead also gives us cause for concern. During the 1984 election, Prime Minister Mulroney promised open and accessible government. Yet in a decision that is expected to have a profound economic, social, cultural and political impact on our society and way of life, the processes for public participation and decision-making around this accord give rise to serious ethical concerns.

For example, there was the committee that went out to study free trade, that went out to listen to the Canadian people. It was a very hurried report. The committee did not take any steps to see that Canadians or witnesses had access to the fullest possible information concerning probable effects and implications of the agreement. How can you conduct an inquiry unless you provide the information?

The committee did not inform Canadians about the timing and location of hearings and did not decide to have hearings broadcast. If you are having a very serious discussion of a matter crucial to the Canadian people, surely you would have those meetings broadcast.

The committee did not provide an opportunity for all those who wished to make presentations. In each city, the committee was only able to invite a small fraction of the witnesses who wanted to appear. New Democratic colleagues who were on that committee who asked that there be an hour allocated in these hearings for brief statements were voted down by the majority. Again, it was putting a muzzle on the Canadian people.

For a Prime Minister who says he is open and sensitive to all the regions of Canada, this committee showed unbelievable insensitivity in deciding not to travel to the Yukon in order to listen first hand to the specific concerns of that government and the residents of the Yukon.

Even if I were an individual who personally favoured free trade, and I am not -- I prefer an option I will describe later -- even if I favoured the free trade agreement or free trade as a concept, I could not support the manner in which it has been pushed along.

Let me give members some of the views that were expressed about this process. “Why are we doing this so fast? This committee does not have a text of the final agreement.” Margaret Atwood.

“We are being rushed into this. A kind of shotgun wedding, in order to cope with Congress’s so-called fast track timetable.” Mordecai Richler.

“What would people think of a union leader that announced it had negotiated and then asked its members to express their views without knowing the details and then said it intended to ratify the deal without a full vote of the members?” Canadian Labour Congress.

“The first thing we would like to express is our disappointment with the lack of information our group has been able to receive in a timely manner in order to properly research and evaluate the impact of free trade in the Northwest Territories.” Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce.

“This government has no mandate to negotiate free trade. Anyone who voted for Brian Mulroney actually voted against free trade because he had declared himself, as had all previous leaders of the Conservative Party since John A. Macdonald.” Saskatchewan Citizens Concerned About Free Trade.

“It is the equivalent of a kangaroo court moving from city to city to a hand-picked few, rushing with indecent haste towards its foregone conclusion.” Gerard Docquier, United Steelworkers.

My friends, it is very obvious that what we have is a government that is hell-bent on making a decision without a mandate and without broad public input. The Mulroney deal puts thousands of jobs at risk. Our families, our friends and our neighbours will suffer the consequences. One Mulroney cabinet minister estimated the free trade gamble could cost Canadians 800,000 jobs.

Mulroney has disregarded this. He has been less than frank when talking about the trade deal’s impact. But when one considers the approach, it is little wonder that Mr. Mulroney is not prepared to have an evenly balanced debate in which we look at the negative side of the picture as well as some of the positive side.

The Mulroney government opens the doors wide to foreign investment by this trade deal. It strips Canadians of ownership and control. It exposes tens of thousands of Canadian businesses to US takeover. American companies, as we heard in the House today, return their profits to head office. Canadian companies reinvest profits in Canada and create jobs for Canadians. A recent study by Statistics Canada says that for every $1 billion in profits, Canadian companies created 5,700 new jobs between 1978 and 1985. For the same $1 billion of profits during the same period, US firms created a grand total of 17 jobs in Canada.

I turn for a moment to the energy issue. The Mulroney trade deal would push the door open wide to American access to our oil and gas reserves. The government is selling out our natural resources. If we suffer an energy crisis, Canadians will have to share our precious energy supplies with the US on an equal basis. We will have to share our dwindling oil reserves, even though Canada will be a large importer of oil by the mid-1990s.

The Mulroney trade deal would also deny us the right to export our oil at a fair market price while protecting Canadian consumers against high costs. With a severe climate like ours energy is not a luxury. Is it fair that surviving a Canadian winter will cost more than a winter in the United States? The deal may also override the right of provinces to charge their own citizens lower rates than they charge foreign customers. That would mean higher costs for Canadian consumers.

1730

My friends, in addition to this, we have a situation where we are opening access to our financial institutions, we are opening access for financial takeovers and, indeed, it would appear and it could be argued that we are selling the shop.

I come back to the initial point, and the point is one of democracy and one of input. If there is going to be a reasonable debate and if Canadians are going to have an opportunity to participate in that debate, then we must be given time.

The Canadian Catholic Bishops’ Commission put forward a suggestion that I think is very worth while and very valuable. The commission urged the government to make available to the public all background studies and research that have been done regarding the negative as well as the positive impacts of free trade. How can we have a debate without having all the facts?

Further, the commission suggested that they set up a public fund and allocate it equally to groups on both sides of the free trade issue. One of my great fears is that this is going to be a debate where simply financial resources and the influence of the government in terms of pushing forward its ideas will lead it to use its position of government and also sheer power of dollars to try to influence the people of Canada.

There is a further price to pay. The dream of free trade is still remote, with a flawed dispute settlement mechanism and no exemption from the omnibus trade bill. In seven years, we will pay again to get common rules, and still we will not get secure access, but we will be more integrated and more dependent.

We on this side of the House believe that Canada should negotiate with the United States either multilaterally through the GATT or bilaterally in a piecemeal way; that is, separately, on outstanding issues including tariffs, trade laws, dispute resolution mechanisms and sectoral issues. We do have leverage. We are their largest market and we are a reliable supplier of resources which they are running out of.

I would like to bring a final point to the House. It is this: I believe the government should take heed of the advice that the Assembly of First Nations gave the committee, based on its own historical experience of the dangers of bargaining with a much stronger power. It is always the strongest one who puts the terms in the treaties, and the one that is bound by it has to follow the words.

The United States is a lot stronger than Canada, just as the British government was a lot stronger than the sovereign Indian nations in Canada that had to deal with the English and follow the rules of the English government. Otherwise, the final lament of Chief Moses Okimaw’s is brief. It is this: free trade will make Indians of us all. It may well be that this is the Mulroney government’s legacy to our children.

In conclusion, let me simply say that the proposal that is being put forward by the government is a motion that does not have sufficient strength. Certainly, considering the implications of this trade deal to our country, I would have hoped and the New Democratic Party would have hoped that the government that campaigned so vigorously on this issue would have been as vigorous in implementing and taking a stand that would clearly signal to the people of this province its determination that this deal would not go through.

At the same time, I hope that, having gone through this debate, the government will have had an opportunity to review its position, to realize that the position it has taken over the last several months since it was elected to office has been one that does not fit comfortably with the stance it took during the election. The passion and the drive that was out there during the election campaign and on the hustings as to how this deal would be blocked, there would be no deal, has gone. What we have seen in the last couple of months is a pale shadow of what we heard in August.

I hope that the government, in reflecting upon the debate, will see fit to support the amendments put forward by my colleagues on this side of the House in the New Democratic Party and will support the amendments when this motion comes for decision.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address this issue.

Mr. Pelissero: I consider it an honour and, more, a privilege to participate in the debate on the resolution. What I would like to do over the next 10 or 15 minutes is outline what I think have been pieces to a puzzle that really started in 1985 when the Prime Minister and the President got together for the Shamrock Summit in Quebec. Since then we have had a number of pieces coming together that leave us with the deal being signed by the Prime Minister and the President.

First of all, I would like to restate the Liberal government position in the sense that we are not opposed to freer trade, fairer trade or liberalizing our trading relationships with any of our partners. What we are opposed to is this particular Mulroney trade agreement and, certainly from the polls that have been released recently in the media, most of the Canadian population feels the same way. They are in favour of the concept of freer trade but they are evenly divided when it comes to this particular trade agreement.

I think most people have to try to understand in fact what is in the final text. The government, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) and the Premier have all been given advice that, on the whole, there are more losses than there are gains for the province in this agreement.

Why was January 2, 1988, an important date for the signing of this agreement? That was when fast-track approval ran out. That meant that the Congress had to either accept or reject the deal in whole. They would not have the ability to amend the agreement. We, as a country, are responding to an American deadline.

l have some difficulty with that, in the sense that if this agreement is as significant as individuals are telling us it is and it is going to have as great an impact on ordinary lives of Canadian citizens, then I think we need a lot more time to look at it.

Certainly at one time the Premier of the province said, “Let’s put things on hold for six months to look at the document and read between the lines.” The final agreement is in excess of 350 pages, with all the addenda, articles and side agreements, and we end up trying to read between the lines on each of the pages.

1740

It is important to review the status before the Mulroney trade agreement. What was happening to our trading relationships prior to these negotiations and the trade deal’s coming about?

Since 1947 and Canada’s participation in the GATT, tariffs have been reduced from an average of about 40 per cent to a level of about five per cent. In fact, 80 per cent of our goods currently enter the United States basically on a free trade arrangement. An additional 15 per cent of our goods, over and above the 80 per cent, are coming into the United States at less than five per cent. So it is important to focus in on what were are actually going to accomplish if this deal goes through.

People’s best guesstimate -- and I underline the word "guesstimate,” because even Gordon Ritchie, the deputy chief negotiator, identified that we do not have any hard facts, we do not have any real studies, we just have a good feeling that this is going to increase job opportunities and maybe at the best will take that 80 per cent figure up to a 90 per cent figure. I maintain that the cost to go from 80 per cent to 90 per cent is too large.

What were the objectives of the Prime Minister in entering into the negotiations with the United States? He has talked about two objectives. One dealt with the question of access and the other one dealt with the question of being exempt from the US trade law or the omnibus trade bill. In fact, in the omnibus trade bill there was a section mandating President Reagan to negotiate with the Prime Minister a reduction of tariffs. That was a part of that omnibus trade bill and I do not think we should lose sight of that if people are talking about an objective of trying to reduce tariffs.

We have gone from a discussion in this whole exercise of, at the beginning, having greater access to a large market of more than 250 million people. We then moved to a position of talking about securing the access we currently had. Then we ended up in a position of, “We had better cut a deal with the United States because of the protectionist legislation that is being contemplated being brought forward.” We really negotiated the deal more out of fear than out of good economic sense.

If we look at the question of being exempt from the US trade law and the omnibus trade bill, even Bill Winegard’s committee gave conditional support to the free trade agreement if we as a country were not exempt from the US trade law. We have no guarantee of that. Congress has said it is not even willing to look at this much before June 1988. In fact, it may not be until the fall that it actually takes a look at it. We are not sure the omnibus trade bill will not, in fact, be put into place first.

On the question of the exemption from the US trade law and the setting up of the binational panel, in my mind, and certainly in the government’s mind, the jury is still out. We have one set of legal experts who say it is binding: we have another set of legal experts who say it is not. Until we see the implementing paperwork, the process and the formula, I think it is still unsure what we actually accomplished out of that versus what we were trying to accomplish through GATT.

It raises another interesting point that was brought home to me the other night by a constituent who said, “If as a provincial government you do not have faith in the deal that Simon Reisman negotiated on a bilateral basis, keep in mind that this is the same individual who is in charge of our multilateral negotiations as well under GATT.” My response back to that individual was: “It was not really Simon Reisman who negotiated this deal. He was pulled out at the last minute and replaced by Mr. Wilson, Miss Carney and gentlemen out of the Prime Minister’s office, and the deal was negotiated more for political expediency rather than for economic benefits.”

Certainly it has been stated in some places that the deal was put to the United States like this: “If you cannot cut a deal with Canada, your largest trading partner, how can you ever hope to walk into the multilateral discussions with an ounce of credibility and sincerity?” What started off, maybe, as an economic deal quickly became a political deal in terms of trying to satisfy the federal government.

What are some of the elements of the deal? We have heard the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I think, do a very good job of outlining the concerns with respect to the agricultural sector. Certainly there are many grape producers in my riding who feel they have become a bargaining chip. Whether it has been the federal government or the negotiators, people have recognized finally that the wine industry and the grape growers in particular were a bargaining chip to achieve we are not sure exactly which ends.

The two-price wheat system not only has served the Canadian farmers adequately but has served the Canadian consumer very well. In fact, with the elimination of that, it has been estimated that there will be a net loss of some $25 million to Ontario wheat producers. We have to be concerned about what the federal government is going to be doing and if what they are going to be contemplating in terms of compensation will be countervailable. Again, we are unsure of that.

The auto pact: in the Niagara Peninsula there are a number of auto manufacturers, not only in Lincoln but also in St. Catharines and St. Catharines-Brock. With all the tariffs gone and the 60 per cent Canadian content now becoming a 50 per cent North American content, there will not be an incentive for industries to be located in or come into Ontario. If I understand the elements of the free trade agreement properly, we as a country gave up our right to include anybody under the auspices of the auto pact while the United States maintained the right simply to include additional companies only if they were to consult with Canada. We have given up our right to introduce any new manufacturers under the auto pact while the United States retains that right.

People have talked about using the auto pact. The Prime Minister said, “Well, we need more auto pacts.” I could not agree with him more, but “auto pact” is sectoral trade; “auto pact” is not a comprehensive bilateral trading arrangement with the United States. It is sectoral trade, and if we want to talk about sectoral trade, then we should not be talking about this comprehensive free trade arrangement with the United States.

Another fact we should not lose sight of is that the auto pact was not just an Ontario auto pact, it was a Canadian auto pact, and the auto parts manufacturers could have located anywhere in Canada. They decided to locate in Ontario, but they could just as easily have located in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Quebec, right across the border. The auto pact was not just an Ontario auto pact, it was a Canadian auto pact.

In terms of financial investments and a screening and a review mechanism, people have talked about, “Yes, we are still going to have the ability to maintain our right to screen foreign investments,” but that ceiling or limit is going to be going from $5 million to $150 million. The companies which will fall between those really make a joke of the “review mechanism” that will be in place to look at those larger companies.

Energy was not on the table during the preliminary discussions. When the economic negotiations ended, with Mr. Reisman being taken out of the process and Mr. Wilson, Miss Carney and the gentlemen from the Prime Minister’s office getting involved, energy was put on the table to be more of a sweetener than anything because, again, the deal was needed for political considerations.

I have a couple of concerns when we start talking about the whole process in terms of, first of all why we responded to a January 2, 1988, deadline with the United States.

We gained more information from the United States about this free trade arrangement than we did from the federal government. That should concern the Canadian people as well.

We have as well a ratification process in both governments, in Canada and in the United States, that leaves uncertain what is going to transpire.

Some other concerns relate not only to the process but to other pieces of the puzzle: for instance, the value of the Canadian dollar versus the American dollar. We see it is on the rise, and what is that going to mean in terms of our trading relationship with the United States? We see the value of the American dollar falling in relation to other world currencies. There are no studies that support this giant leap of faith we are planning on taking with the destiny of Canada.

Another area of concern seems to be a harmless statement in the document. It talks about the harmonization of standards or “the level playing field.” I have some serious concerns ranging all the way from environmental standards to health standards.

The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has identified on a number of occasions his concerns. Once the “level playing field” is there, what is going to happen? There is going to be increased pressure from the industries to say: “Look, the United States does not have as strict environmental standards. We need to be talking about what we can do to further level the field.”

1750

Also within the agricultural sector, our farmers will not have the same access to the chemical tools that the American farmers have, again a disadvantage. And do we expect the Americans to raise their standards, or in fact will we in Canada have to lower our standards?

Professor Larry Martin from the University of Guelph, dealing with the whole question of harmonization of standards, said this either could be a plus for us or could be the biggest minus in the whole agreement. He still is not convinced of which way it is going to go, and I think the jury is very much out on it.

When we look at social policies in terms of minimum wage, as an example the whole question, in talking to Brian Nash from the Grape Growers’ Marketing Board, that farmers are more than prepared to pay a minimum wage of between $4.50 and $5 an hour because they recognize that that is the cost of being a Canadian with respect to our health, our welfare and our educational policies.

If we use Mexico as an example, there is a strip in Mexico that is several kilometres deep and runs the full length of the border, some 3,200 kilometres. The official trade zone contains some 1,200 US factories employing some 300,000 Mexican workers. They are mostly teenagers, mostly nonunion and earning about 65 cents an hour. Is that the kind of country we want eventually to have Canada end up looking like?

In closing, I want to put a couple of personal concerns on record. First of all, I do not really like being painted as an individual who is a wimp, who is afraid to negotiate and that we are part of a larger -- and I use Simon Reisman’s words -- “Nazi-like conspiracy.” I do not appreciate that just because we are questioning the elements of the agreement. I think individuals, if presented with the facts and just the facts, will make an appropriate and honest decision.

An example of the federal government’s portrayal of a farmer in its brochure, in an attempt to sell the free trade agreement, shows two individuals, a male and a female. In probably somebody’s understanding of agriculture within the federal government, the female is riding probably a 1940s vintage John Deere tractor. The male has a slight glaze over his eyes and has a baseball cap on, a plaid shirt, coveralls, big boots and a stalk of wheat in his mouth. There are two cows, a pile of wheat and a bushel of potatoes.

That is not Canadian agriculture in the 1980s and into the 1990s. I, as a farmer, do not appreciate someone trying to portray and perpetuate the primitive myth that the media carry around of what agriculture looks like. If individuals are not willing to put forward the case on just the facts rather than having a version of a cross between the Beverley Hillbillies and Green Acres to try to sell it into the agriculture community, I treat that as an insult.

So I think we have to look at trying to get the facts out and allowing the Canadian people the opportunity to make an informed decision on this, and the only way they can make an informed decision on this is to get the facts. Then I would support the call for a federal election on the issue for the simple reason that people should have the ability to pass judgement on what is a historic agreement and could virtually change the direction of this country, not only for the near future but for the very distant future as well.

Mr. Harris: It is a pleasure to be able to have five minutes to enter into this historic debate. I will take the opportunity to get started today and perhaps I can carry on tomorrow for however long it takes to conclude my remarks.

Given the shortness of time, perhaps I will lay out a few things that I would like to cover in my remarks. We really are dealing with several debates in one. Perhaps that is a good way to put it. One is the free trade resolution that is before the House itself. I think while we are debating that, I want to take the opportunity to put my thoughts on the agreement itself on the record. I want to put my thoughts on the principle of a freer trade agreement with the United States on the record as well. I may even refer from time to time to the resolution that is before the House, the one proposed by the government. I might perhaps even refer as well to the amendment that is before us.

Mr. Laughren: Sterling, come on over and sit beside Mike.

Mr. Harris: Come on over and sit beside me. I might give the member a little bit of my time if he wants to get on the record.

There is a second aspect to this debate, and that is the process that has been followed in how the government is dealing with free trade, how it is dealing with this resolution and the whole democratic process. In that, I want to talk on the process.

I do not want to go over a lot of ground that has been gone over by my colleagues, either in the debate or in the process. I will not be going back over all the history of events at House leaders’ meetings and what not. I think that has been covered by a number of speakers from all sides of the House, particularly speakers from our party and speakers from the New Democratic Party.

Since I was one of the principals involved in that, I do not particularly want to go over that ground of what was agreed to, what was not and those aspects. I do want to talk about the process that we are being asked to follow and I want to talk about it in conjunction with other things that this government is doing.

It really has to deal with the rights of all members of this House who are not in the executive council. It has to do with why the members of my party, the members of the New Democratic Party, and the majority of the members of the Liberal Party are here, and why this process affects them and why it is part of a series of events that I think they should be very concerned about as back-bench members of this Legislature.

This process talks about what the whole meaning is of being a member, what does it mean to be a committee member of this Legislature. There are a number of examples that I have alluded to over the last few weeks, whether it had to do with Sunday shopping, whether it had to do with the way Meech Lake is being treated or whether it had to do with a number of other items that this government --

Mr. Villeneuve: A different definition of democracy.

Mr. Harris: I will say it -- with the pay bills, and who decides how we get paid around here. I am one of those who does not think that members should be voting on their own pay raises, but I think it is even worse for one man to tell us how we get paid, particularly a millionaire who has no vested interest in it.

So the process has been an important part of this debate. A number of speakers have referred to it and I think it is important that one understands why our party has been so concerned about the process. I will be talking about that in my remarks as I pick this up tomorrow. As well, I will be talking, and will try to get some information on the record, about how this affects my riding of Nipissing and how it affects Jim Coutts’s company in North Bay.

Mr. Villeneuve: Jim Coutts? Who is he?

Mr. Harris: The Du Pont and the Fabrene plant which rely on access to the American market. How it affects the other interested companies in Nipissing. I will be talking a little bit about how it affects northern Ontario, and I will try to bring into the debate some of the things that have not been put on the record, rather than repeating some of the points that many of my colleagues have made, all of which I agree with.

Suffice it to say that I am pleased to associate myself with all the remarks and will try not to take time repeating them. So, noting the hour, I will pick up tomorrow with the thoughts I have outlined today.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

5 janvier 1988