Journal des débats 1998-mai-11 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): This is a government that promised it would not cut services to the disabled, a promise they have broken. When headlines are full of issues of more personal concern, it is easy to miss the plight of the neediest among us. In the tidal wave of the Common Sense Revolution, the erosion of support for the disabled has proceeded relentlessly, but without much fanfare.

On Saturday, the Ontario Coalition of Families Supporting People with Developmental Disabilities tried to correct that. Some 700 people gathered for a Mothers' Day march to ask the government to reverse $50.4 million in cuts to developmental services.

Families are working extremely hard to keep their disabled children at home at great savings to the system, yet the supports they desperately need are being taken away as those savings are transferred to general government coffers.

Plainly, the government is balancing its books by cutting funding to disabled children while their parents are forced to beg for every scrap of assistance they can get. The Premier can respond to the obvious need of hepatitis C victims because it is politically wise to be perceived as caring and compassionate. Similar leadership would demand that the government do the right thing by the disabled, who are in great need but not yet in the national headlines.

JOHN P. ROBARTS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Members of this Legislature have a rare privilege today, that of visiting a display that has been set up by the John P. Robarts Research Institute. The John P. Robarts institute is part of the London Health Sciences Centre and the University of Western Ontario. It operates as a very important centre for research and development. This is a privately directed centre and what it does is work on current issues in health care, using the knowledge that is formed out of the pure research that is done to actually find applied research methods that help to build our new knowledge economy.

I'm very grateful that the scientists and the director, Dr Mark Poznansky, from the centre are here today. They want to meet with us as legislators to talk about the role of research and development, not only in terms of creating new knowledge, creating new and more effective means of health care, but also of the efforts to repatriate scientists who may not have found a home in Canada otherwise. They will be here for the rest of the day and hoping to meet with members of the Legislature around the initiatives that they are taking.

LOYALIST COLLEGE NURSING GRADUATES

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I rise in the House today to congratulate Loyalist College nursing graduates who were once again 100% successful in the licensing exams set by the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The 29 graduates from the 1997 class as a group were at or exceeded the provincial average and exceeded the national average in all categories of competencies tested. The competencies included were assessment and planning skills, implementation and evaluation skills, communication skills and professional and personal responsibilities.

The three-year nursing diploma program at Loyalist combines a concentration of theory and practical experience in the health care setting. Learning experiences enable graduates to provide professional nursing care to clients of all ages with varying levels of health and illness.

I want to commend the faculty at Loyalist College whose skill and dedication to teaching has enabled so many students to reach their goals. It makes me very proud that the successful program is a part of our local community college. Of course, the nursing program is just one more example of the great job Loyalist College does in preparing students for the labour market.

I would like once again to congratulate the students in the program who, in passing their licensing exams, have demonstrated such a strong level of commitment to their chosen profession. Best wishes in the future.

TEMPÊTE DE VERGLAS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Aujourd'hui, j'aimerais vous faire part de quelques commentaires sur les conséquences de la crise du verglas du mois de janvier dernier sur les citoyens et citoyennes de ma circonscription. Certes, je n'ai pas à vous mentionner que la région de Prescott et Russell a été durement touchée par cette crise écologique.

Le 29 janvier dernier, le ministre de l'Agriculture procédait à la distribution de chèques de 1000 $ et 2000 $ aux agriculteurs. Lors de la remise de ces chèques, un employé très près du ministre et présent lors de la cérémonie en question déclarait ce qui suit :

«Les gens n'ont pas à s'inquiéter ; personne en Ontario ne sera perdant avec cette crise du verglas. Nous allons faire en sorte que toutes personnes touchées par cette crise seront indemnisées à 100 %.»

Comment peut-on expliquer cette déclaration ? S'agit-il d'un abus de pouvoir de sa part, ou avait-il simplement l'autorité, au nom du ministère, de faire cette déclaration ?

Pourtant, malgré ceci, Louise Potter de Vankleek Hill, qui a perdu un nombre incroyable de chèvres, a encore aujourd'hui beaucoup de mal à se remettre de cette fameuse crise. Que dois-je dire à M. François Cayer de St-Albert, qui a encouru des pertes de plus de 80 000 dollars ? Pourrais-je un jour quitter l'Assemblée législative et retourner dans ma circonscription, non pas avec de belles promesses du ministère mais bien avec la certitude que les agriculteurs seront indemnisés pour leurs nombreuses pertes encourues ? Ces gens ne vivent pas de belles promesses, mais bel et bien de billets verts.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): On Saturday evening I was pleased to attend the 16th annual Clifton Grant awards banquet, an event organized each year by the Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers and the Windsor Occupational Health Information Service. It is to honour those who fight to improve safety on the job and in their communities. It is also in memory of those who lost their lives at work or as a result of it, people like Bud Jimmerfield of CAW Local 89, who died after long exposure to metal-cutting fluids. His wife and eight children attended to accept an award on his behalf.

The Clifton Grant award was presented to Shirley Egan, a health and safety rep with CAW Local 444. She works at Casino Windsor and was instrumental in the organization of the gaming workers health and safety research project. Other award winners included Nina Bradt, Connie Couture, Mike Darnell, Father John Duarte, Mike McLister, Tom Noble, Vanessa Ryan, Janice Cuckovic and Jim Winter.

The keynote speaker was Rory O'Neill, the editor of a British health and safety journal called Hazards. He pointed out the blatant double standards of corporations and governments that will advocate the use of the most sophisticated and expensive tests available to detect drug or alcohol abuse, but do not advocate the same level of testing for hazardous substances in the workplace.

In Great Britain, cancer is now the leading cause of death. We must all work towards safer workplaces in communities so Canada doesn't follow.

POLICE WEEK

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): As a former police officer and chair of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Police Services Board, I rise to remind members that May 10 through 16 is Police Week 1998. May 15 is recognized internationally as Peace Officers Memorial Day.

This year's national theme in Canada is Working Together as a Community, and Ontario has the subtheme of Partners Against Crime. I am proud of our government's efforts in partnering with and assisting police forces across Ontario.

In his budget, the Minister of Finance announced that more than $150 million will be spent over the next five years on new community safety initiatives. Following up on the minister's commitment, the government has set up a community policing partnership program, a new five-year partnership between the province and the municipalities. This will result in the hiring of up to 1,000 new front-line police officers to increase police visibility and presence and to help target high-crime areas.

The Solicitor General, Mr James Flaherty, announced today new funding for the OPP's special squad to deal with outlaw motorcycle gangs. With this funding, the squad will expand from seven to 20 members and will work with 16 local police services and the RCMP on focused operations, including intelligence gathering and enforcement aimed at the large and growing threat from outlaw biker gangs.

I urge all members to support the special activities for Police Week.

1340

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Another voice has been added to the growing chorus of outrage at the use of the so-called Ontario Jobs and Investment Board to promote the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris.

The Ottawa Citizen has joined those of us who have objected to Mike Harris using government funds, taxpayers' dollars, to purvey a clearly partisan message, and says so in its editorial today entitled "Give Us Back Chainsaw Mike."

The editorial reads as follows:

"He's only been in power for three years and already we feel nostalgic for the old Mike Harris.

"Mike the Knife. Chainsaw Mike. The old Mike Harris, who knew the value of a tax dollar and, as sure as God is a Tory, wasn't going to waste one red cent.

"That was then, this is now. The new, pre-electoral Mike Harris looks as if he loves spending our money, especially when it's good for a few points in the polls.

"Take the slick pamphlet pictured at left. It's full of puffery about how great tax cuts are, how much we'll love the "rural job strategy fund" (for which, read "small town slush fund"), and how things in general are just swell with the Tories in charge.

"It went to every household in the province, almost four million of them, and cost $750,000.

"Who paid? You did, with your Ontario tax dollars.

"Say it ain't so, Chainsaw!"

The Ottawa Citizen is right. This advertising blitz is unfair, unethical, and a waste of tax dollars.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Love that paper.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Ottawa-Rideau, I ask you to come to order, and the member for Lambton.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have in my hand a memo from C. McMullin, director of Ontario Works branch, and R. Cooke, director of social assistance programs branch, of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, dated May 1, 1998.

Members will know that as of April 1, 1998, the ministry instituted a living-with-parents policy for adult recipients 18 years of age and over who are living in property owned or controlled by their parents. The new policy would have meant their benefits would have been cut. Essentially what the policy said was that parents should give accommodation to their adult children and their families rent-free.

This memo of May 1 states that the policy will not apply to recipients living in accommodation separate and apart from parents, but owned and controlled by parents. This policy now is retroactive to April 1 and adjustments will be made in benefits for those who lost their benefits because of this policy when it came into effect at the beginning of last month. Apparently this new policy is in effect pending a review of the whole approach to recipients living with parents by the Minister of Community and Social Services.

I call on the minister to make that policy clear and permanent. Don't leave recipients renting from their parents uncertain about the level of welfare benefits they will receive.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): The official opening of the Stratford Shakespearean Festival will take place in June this year, but I'd like to invite the people of Ontario to take advantage of the performances that begin today.

Each year the festival offers people the opportunity to preview the plays and musicals that will be lighting up the stage during the regular season.

In the lead-up to the festival's 46th season, audiences will be able to see Julius Caesar, Man of La Mancha, A Man for All Seasons, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, Much Ado about Nothing and The Miracle Worker.

The performances are offered at a reduced rate and give people a chance to see the city of Stratford in all its springtime beauty. As many of you know, during the 1997 judging for Nations in Bloom, Stratford received the distinct honour of being ranked the most beautiful city in the world with a population between 10,000 and 50,000.

My congratulations to city officials who showed the glory of Stratford. It's truly one of the best places to work, live and raise a family, and I'm happy to see that recognized in Ontario and around the world.

The stage is set. The costumes are made. The gardens in front of the Festival Theatre are in full bloom. I encourage everyone who would be interested in participating in the festival to take advantage of this offer and come and see the beautiful city of Stratford in my riding of Perth.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on May 11, 12 and 13, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity right now to introduce in the Speaker's gallery - in our midst is a real Speaker - Mr Hugh Edighoffer, a former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. Welcome.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'll make the Speaker jokes around here.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Last Wednesday, May 6, 1998, the member for St Catharines (Mr Bradley) raised a point of privilege with respect to government advertising. The member for Algoma (Mr Wildman), the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt (Mr Phillips) also contributed to the discussion in this matter.

I want to first address the issue of timeliness that was referred to by the government House leader. It is true that matters of privilege must be raised at the first available opportunity and members should always be cognizant of that fact. However, since the documents submitted to me are dated up to and including May 6, 1998, I have allowed the point to be made and considered.

I want to begin by again providing for all honourable members a definition of "privilege." Standing order 21 states that, "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom." Examples of privilege enjoyed by members are freedom of speech, freedom from arrest in civil actions, exemption from jury duty, exemption from attendance as a witness and freedom from molestation.

In considering the advertising in question, my responsibility is to determine whether anything in it interferes with any proceeding in this Legislature in such a manner as to intimidate or hinder or attempt by improper means to influence a member in the performance of his or her duties.

The member for St Catharines quoted from an earlier ruling I gave on a similar matter. If he had continued on with that quote, however, he would have noted that I was expressing a personal opinion and that I went on to say, "I do not have jurisdiction to examine the propriety of such campaigns unless they raise a matter of privilege or contempt." As Speaker Sauvé of the Canadian House of Commons indicated in her ruling of October 17, 1980, it is not the spending of money that is at issue, but rather whether or not such an expenditure has led to any interference with the proceedings of Parliament.

It is not clear from what the member has said what head of privilege he feels is being breached; nevertheless, I have reviewed the advertising campaign in question. The ads do not in my opinion attempt by improper means to influence members in their parliamentary conduct. They do not impede freedom of speech in this House, nor in fact do they relate to a particular proceeding currently before us. Therefore, I can find no basis on which a prima facie case of privilege can be made.

I further considered the advertising in question with a view to determining whether or not it amounted to contempt of this House. The ads do not in my opinion obstruct or impede the House or any member or officer in the performance of duties or functions. They have not diminished the respect due to this House, nor do they reflect negatively on it. I cannot therefore find that a prima facie case of contempt has been made out.

I thank all members for their submissions.

1350

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order, rising briefly: I'm not challenging your ruling. I would never challenge the ruling at all. I simply ask for some guidance as to where one can take complaints of this kind, then. I have a great concern - I don't know if I could take this to you - that this particular agency, the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board, is in fact being used for political purposes. Maybe, if we have the former principal secretary to the Premier on it, we have to go to the Integrity Commissioner or somebody like that. I don't know who you might suggest one can go to to appeal what appears, I'd say to my friend the government House leader, to be use by partisans of what I hoped would be a non-partisan agency. But Mr Lindsay, the head of that agency, has been an assistant to the government caucus, a former principal secretary to the Premier and a Conservative candidate.

The Speaker: The point is that it's not privilege and it's not contempt. Can you refer it to the Integrity Commissioner? Of course. Any member can refer anything to the Integrity Commissioner. That's a decision you can take and you should take as soon as possible, but there's nothing I can do to resolve that problem for you. Thank you for your time; thank you for your submission.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is to the Minister of Education. University and college students across this province are in a state of shock as they realize what your tuition increases are going to mean to them. They are telling us the stories of the thousands of dollars of personal debt that they already have, and they're telling us of their fears of seeing their debt get to the point where they just can't stay in school any longer.

Your budget attempted to boast of promises made and promises kept, but this is another area where you have broken your promise big-time. Your Premier promised that tuition in universities would rise slightly, to 25% of cost. Tuition in our universities is already 35% of the cost, thanks to you, and it is about to go higher. You promised that college tuition fees would be allowed to rise to 20% of cost; after your tuition increases they are 28.5%.

Now, with deregulation, you've given up any control over how much higher the fees will go. You've abandoned any responsibility to the students of this province. Why have you broken your promise and abandoned any responsibility for making sure college and university education is affordable for the average person?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The member opposite has quoted some statistics. Let me throw back some statistics. Enrolment today at our universities and colleges has never been more robust. At the university level, at the college level, part-time students, across the board, the enrolment today at our universities and colleges has never been more robust.

Second, the amount of assistance going from the government to the students has never been higher than it is today, to assist the students in their post-secondary education.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Fort William.

Hon David Johnson: She doesn't want to hear this, I guess, Mr Speaker.

This government, the Progressive Conservative government, has assisted students, and will this year, to the tune of about $550 million. The highest amount of assistance the Liberal government afforded to post-secondary students was about $200 million a year. We have more than doubled that amount of assistance to the students. In addition, there are loans on top of that to assist students even further.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): The minister didn't answer the question. You haven't even started to address your government's 60% increase in tuition that's going to happen by next year at this time. We started a Shattered Dreams campaign, Minister, that has received cards back from all over the province.

I'd like to ask the minister, what do you say to a student from Toronto who has a $40,000 debt after three years, with no relief from your government? What do you say to the student from Sarnia with a $25,000 debt after two years, with no relief from your government? The only relief you have given them is tuition increases - tuition increases, by the way, which only exceeded the increases brought about by the previous government. What do you say to students across this province with high debt loads, having failed miserably to answer any of their concerns, with an average debt load of $25,000 coming out of university in this province?

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Duncan: What do you say to them in terms of accessibility and affordability of education in this province? You've undermined it, you've done nothing for it. Your last answer was an embarrassment to your government, just as your policies -

The Speaker: Thank you. Answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: What I would say to the students is, too bad the Liberals don't have their facts straight. The facts are that the average debt is nowhere near $25,000 per student. The facts are that this government is giving more assistance to students than any government in the history of provincial government.

The budget announced the creation of the Canada-Ontario millennium scholarship fund, which will combine with the federal government to provide $9 billion worth of assistance.

We have created the opportunity trust fund, some $600 million worth of assistance to help our post-secondary students. There are more students than ever in the history of the province of Ontario.

The member is speculating on what the tuition increases will be. He doesn't know what the tuition increases will be. Under the Liberal government, we do know, though, that tuition fees went up by 35%. We know that as a matter of fact. Now, where is the outrage about that?

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: Our system is to be accessible, is to have more opportunity and to allow our students to take the courses they need.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, I'd ask you to stop doing that. You're frightening your own members.

Final supplementary.

Mr Duncan: The fact is, according to the universities we contacted today, the tuition increases will approach 60% by the end of next year. Your government has no plan other than to deregulate tuition and make it more difficult for average Ontarians to access university in this province, whether it be at the undergraduate level or the graduate level.

What do you say to those students there and the high school students that are in these galleries about the affordability of education? Your facts and figures don't address the debt level. The fact is the average debt is $25,000 a year. The fact is you will have increased tuition by close to 60%. The fact is you've deregulated tuition for certain programs. The fact, Minister, is that your government is a failure in post-secondary education.

What do you say to those students? Give us some facts about what you're going to do to give meaningful relief to students, starting with withdrawing your policies and facing up to your obligation as a government to ensure that education at the post-secondary level is accessible.

What are you going to do? Give us some real facts, not your spin, not your propaganda. Get into the 1990s and out of the 1980s and face today's reality. Why don't you do that, Minister?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order. Member for Dufferin-Peel, come to order. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I don't think I can match that. I don't think I can go without breathing for quite that long.

What I will say again to the member opposite is, please check the facts. The average debt is not $25,000 per student. We should get our facts straight. As a matter of fact, the average debt per post-secondary student is about half that, universities being higher, colleges being a bit lower, and other students being a bit lower than that.

Again, this government this year is giving over $500 million in direct assistance to students. Your government, the Liberal government, during its term gave less than $200 million in terms of assistance to students. The participation rate at our universities and colleges is higher under a Progressive Conservative government than it was under a Liberal government. We have more students; we have more assistance going to students.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-Walkerville, come to order.

Answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: Finally, what we want to achieve is more opportunity. We want to open up more opportunity. That's why we're pouring more money into this system. That's why we're getting private -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question, official opposition.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, a few weeks ago Ontario Hydro announced that it would be taking a staggering $6.6-billion write-down against its 1997 balance sheet. That write-down, at $6.6 billion, represents the largest write-down in the corporate history of Canada.

My question to you, Minister: Were you consulted by Ontario Hydro about the size and the makeup of that write-down, and if so, did you express an opinion and/or give your approval?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Ontario Hydro has its own board of directors. They've looked at some problems that have built up in Ontario Hydro, as you well know, over a number of years. They felt it was better to do a write-down now and acknowledge those responsibilities and obligations of Ontario Hydro now, up front.

1400

Mr Conway: Ontario Hydro in this particular matter is using extraordinarily questionable accounting practices. Time does not permit, but let me tell you what you, Minister, already know. In this $6.6 billion of write-down, Ontario Hydro is writing off, against last year's balance sheet, hundreds of millions - in fact billions - of dollars of yet to be incurred expenses. I can imagine what Erik Peters, the Provincial Auditor, thinks about that. They are writing down, against last year's balance sheet, hundreds of millions, billions of dollars of yet to be incurred expenses. Do you, Ernie Eves, as the guarantor of this publicly sponsored debt, approve of that kind of accounting practice?

Hon Mr Eves: Under the accrual basis of accounting, which the government has now gone to, obligations are recognized as decisions are made by that particular body. It is true what the member says, that ultimately, at the end of the day, the Ontario government has always been the ultimate guarantor of any indebtedness or obligations of Ontario Hydro. That's been an ongoing fact of life around here long before both he and I were elected to this place, and will continue to be so and I think has to be so. However, I think Ontario Hydro, its board of directors, has decided in its wisdom that these are obligations Ontario Hydro has to recognize and that the sooner they recognize them, the better.

Mr Conway: As we speak, Ontario Hydro is now by its own admission bankrupt. With this write-down they had a multibillion-dollar deficit last year. They've got $32 billion worth of debt, almost all of which you guarantee on behalf of this assembly and the people of Ontario. We are about to head into a competitive electricity marketplace, which in principle we all support.

It couldn't be clearer what Ontario Hydro's board of directors and Ontario Hydro management is doing with this kind of multibillion-dollar write-down. What they intend to do is offload much of their multibillion-dollar debt, off the back of the public utility, and on to the back of the Ontario taxpayer, who very soon is going to awaken to this magical new world of stranded debt that's probably going to be in the neighbourhood of $15 billion to $20 billion.

My question to you, Minister of Finance, as the guarantor of all Ontario Hydro debt, is, what specific measures are you taking, particularly in this transitional period, to protect the Ontario taxpayer against the rapacious and incredible behaviour of Ontario Hydro board management?

Hon Mr Eves: Ontario Hydro's debt has amassed over many, many years, as he well knows. The debt of Ontario Hydro has continued to grow over many decades of existence. I would quite readily say that perhaps there are some issues with Ontario Hydro that should have been faced long before now, but Ontario Hydro is now facing them. With respect to the issue of stranded debt, the government will certainly be looking at whatever Ontario Hydro plans to do with respect to stranded debt. We have approved no new increase in Ontario Hydro debt to date.

TUITION FEES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Minister of Finance. I want to go back to your budget and the huge tax grab you are imposing upon the university students of Ontario. Already in three years you have increased tuition fees by 60%, and in this most recent budget you are increasing tuition fees for a large number of students across this province by a further $5,000 a year - an incredible tax grab. What it means is that the sons and daughters of middle-income and modest-income families are going to have a harder and harder time financing their way through university, especially graduate programs and some of the programs that will lead to the assurance of a job.

Today we've got with us a number of students from the University of Toronto medical school, who all say that your tuition tax grab would have made it impossible for them to go through medical school.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Hampton: Minister, how do you justify giving the wealthiest a tax gift and imposing a huge tax grab on these -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I refer the question to the Minister of Education.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The first point to make is that the member is speculating on what any increase may or may not be. To stand here in the House and say that a particular tuition fee is going to go up by $5,000, or they're going to go up by $5,000 across the board, I'm sure the member knows - I hope the member knows - is total speculation on his part.

What we are trying to accomplish in this whole program, a program which includes $150 million in funding from the province of Ontario, more money from the province of Ontario, which includes a $9 billion Canada-Ontario millennium fund to assist our students, is to increase the opportunities, to ensure the access is there for our young people. The numbers have been increasing. There are more under the Progressive Conservative government than there were under the NDP government, to ensure that accessibility is there and to ensure there are greater opportunities for our young people.

Mr Hampton: We hear the same old spin lines, but these are real students. These are people who know what you are doing to the possibility they have had in the past of becoming physicians, in some cases becoming engineers, becoming computer programmers, getting into graduate school. They know, because they are the people who are going to have to pick up the bill, the debt.

What do you say, for example, to James Stewart, who is married with three children and will face a debt load of more than $100,000 with these new tuition fees? All he wants to do is go back to northern Ontario to practise as a physician. What do you say to him? What do you say to Sandra Demarais, who can't count on family support, who can't count on her family to help her with her financial burden in terms of university tuition fees? Minister, you can spin the numbers all you want. These are the real people.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: These are the people who are having to handle debt loads of $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 because of your tuition fees. You've given the wealthiest people a huge tax gift. What do you say to these people who -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: First of all, I would note that again, with the position of the leader of the third party, it's interesting that when he was in government, tuition fees rose by 50% during the period of the NDP government. Where was the Leader of the Opposition at that time? Where were these very points while he was sitting watching tuition fees increase by 50%?

What I will say is that universities and colleges - Western has indicated that they will improve the quality of our education system and ensure accessibility for our students. Sheridan College has indicated that they will improve quality and access to our young people, so that more and more of our young people will have the opportunities of a post-secondary education at a higher quality level.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): There may have been tuition increases in the past, but this minister is totally deregulating them. Now the sky is going to be the limit.

These medical students aren't concerned only about themselves. They are concerned that you're closing the door on middle-income and lower-income students from being able to pursue the opportunities that they have. Many in this place will agree that an advanced degree will lead to a ticket to a job, but what we don't agree with is that you're reserving all of these tickets to students, families, those who already have money. You say we're speculating about tuition increases. Well, this afternoon the business board at the University of Toronto is going to be considering your astronomical tuition levels.

1410

Minister, it's not too late for your government to come to its senses and reverse this policy. What do you have to say to these students and the next generation of students when they find out they just won't be able to afford the education they need?

Hon David Johnson: The government has a basic difference of opinion with the third party on this matter. The third party would raise tuition fees by 50% and not get a darn thing for it. They would allow the extra revenues to come in, and that's exactly what they did during their term. This government is striving for higher quality in the education system. This government is striving for more opportunity for our young people.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): So if you're richer, that's higher quality.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold on. Members for Fort York, Sudbury East, Lake Nipigon, come to order, please.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Sounds like a Liberal.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I hope I don't sound like a Liberal. That was a very unkind cut.

Many of our young people are being turned away from the kind of program they want, in the higher-tech field, for example, in all fields, really.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Windsor-Walkerville and Renfrew North, come to order.

Hon David Johnson: Just to wrap up, what's important to this government is continued access for our young people to post-secondary institutions - we believe that will happen - but also a higher-quality education and greater opportunity for the young people who are currently being denied today. We are putting in $150 million in particular courses to ensure that there are more spaces, more opportunities, for our young people.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health, but I would say to the Minister of Education, you just don't get it, do you, that middle- and modest-income families can't afford to pay $10,000 a year.

To the Minister of Health, this week a number of nursing organizations, seven to be exact, came together to point out that there is an immediate crisis in patient care in Ontario. They're very clear why there's a crisis in patient care. It's because there are 10,000 fewer nurses in our hospitals, our homes for the aged and our nursing homes, 10,000 fewer because of the money you've taken out of the health care system.

They give all kinds of examples: One chronic care facility where there are two 50-bed units that are staffed with one RN each. If one of the RNs has to go away, it's one RN for 100.

Minister, what are you going to do about that patient care crisis, about the fact that there aren't enough nurses in our hospitals?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We certainly are aware that this is Nursing Week. In fact, this week I have the opportunity to participate in several events, indicating how much our government values the work that is done by nurses and also their role in patient care.

I think we need to put one fallacy to rest, and that is the fact that there have been 10,000 nursing jobs lost in this province. For the record, let's get it clear that this is the number of memberships that ONA has lost. The actual number is not that and nursing unemployment remains at 4.3%. It is the same rate we have had in this province for about five to six years now. We have been working with the nursing associations, the nursing groups, and we appreciate and we understand their concerns. As you know, we have set up a Nursing Services Task Force so that we can work collaboratively with them to resolve the issues that are of concern to them so that we can continue to provide the highest level -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: This was not ONA that was speaking; this is the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario, the College of Nurses of Ontario, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, the Registered Practical Nurses Association of Ontario. They all make the case that if you go from one end of the province to the other, through the hospitals, the nursing homes, the homes for the aged, there are 10,000 fewer people providing nursing services. That's the reality.

They point out that in your most recent budget you put in $230 million to fix computers, and you try to pass that off as an investment in nursing care, but they are very clear: That is for computers, not for improvements in nursing care.

They also point out that in so far as you do have a plan for nursing care, it is to have part-time nurses, temporary nurses, on-call nurses - in other words, no continuity of care for the patient; simply something to help you out of a fix.

Minister, what are you going to do about the fact that there are 10,000 fewer nurses in our hospitals, and nurses are not even going to enter the field in Ontario any more because they see that you don't care about -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again I would just emphasize to you that there have not been 10,000 nursing jobs lost in this province. This is a drop in the ONA membership. However, I would just like to remind the NDP that although we continue to put in new money for nursing services so we can ensure that we have the highest-quality nursing staff possible in this province, I would remind you that it was the NDP that, through their social contract, removed $590 million from hospitals, doctors, home care and health councils. We are actually adding new money to ensure that we can have the highest-quality patient care.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The nurses of the province will be very interested in what the minister has said. She seems to be claiming that there have not been a lot of nursing jobs lost, yet every report that comes from every hospital that is staggering under the $650-million cut to hospitals talks about lost jobs.

You talk about a task force in nursing care. The last time we had a task force on the emergency problem, what did you come up with? A promise to create temporary beds. What do temporary beds mean? Temporary jobs for nurses, casual on-call nurses, and that leads to an erosion of professionalism. That's what the nurses are trying to tell you, that your way of managing is leading to a situation where nurses do not have stable, long-term jobs; where patients do not have the continuity of care; where departments are staffed variably by people who may not be specialists.

Minister, you've taken a whole lot of expert nurses out of this system. What are you going to do about it today to improve patient care?

1420

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just like to indicate that we have heard the concerns of the nursing profession and our government actually is putting in place the building blocks to address the long-standing issues, issues that were there under your government and under the Liberal government. We are putting in place long-term solutions. As nurses have left hospitals, nurses have found other positions in community-based services, they have found new positions in the long-term-care facilities. The role of the nurse continues to change.

In our budget last week we indicated that we were going to be spending $5 million in order that we could utilize the services of the new group of health professionals, the nurse practitioners. We also indicated, when we made our long-term-care announcement, that there would be employment there for 7,900 additional nurses. We also indicated, when we made our changes to address the emergency room overcrowding situation, that we were going to set aside $1 million -

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - to address the issue of emergency care and critical care nurses. As I say, we are taking action now to address the long-standing issues -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question, official opposition.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question directed to the Minister of Health. Minister, I'd like you to respond more specifically to the situation of nurses in this province. They were here at the Legislature today to tell you that your government doesn't respect nurses, that your government doesn't place a high value on them. The college says at least 7,000 positions have disappeared; you'd prefer to debate that.

Minister, what I'd like to debate you on is what you're doing, for example, to one of the nurses who called from Sick Kids' Hospital the Ontario Liberals' Patients Matter Health Hotline. We were told by that nurse that you've turned her nursing conditions upside down, that you've made that hospital, which is supposed to be a beacon of hope for parents across the province, into a place which in the last three weeks has had to defer 20 level 3 neonatal cases away from the hospital.

Minister, you've cut $22 million from Sick Kids' Hospital. Will you put some money back and will you dedicate that money to hire new nurses?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We certainly respect the work that is done by nurses, whether they are at Sick Kids' Hospital or any other nurses. In fact, one of our recent announcements recognized the need for additional oncology nurses, and at the time that we made the investment into additional oncology programs for children at Sick Kids, we also indicated that there was money there in order that we could train and hire additional oncology nurses.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I would caution you not to keep ignoring the needs of nurses and patients. You and your Premier are one of the central causes for the discouragement of nurses in this province. While you cut, yes, the number of neonatal beds, you've also made it difficult - they can't staff those beds all the time. Why? Because you've ruined the working conditions for nurses across this province. In Sick Kids you've made it necessary for them to work part-time, temporary work.

What are you going to say, Minister, really going to say, to the parents of kids who are going to be in hospital for up to 26 weeks, young, newborn babies, and they have to go visit them out of town? They have to go London, they have to go to other places because of the cuts your government has made.

You shouldn't talk about investments when we're talking about people here. You took the money out from under these nurses. You caused them to be fired. You caused their working conditions to be worsened.

Specifically, to the parents of the kids who depend on those neonatal services, will you put money back in and will you dedicate the money going back to hospitals for nurses?

Hon Mrs Witmer: First, I think we need to make it abundantly clear, our government highly respects the work that is done and values the work that has been done by nurses in this province.

I think an indication of the respect and concern we have for the nursing profession and also for the patients they deal with each day is that since becoming Minister of Health I have met with the nursing association on 11 occasions in order that I could start to address the long-standing problems that had been created by previous governments, so that we could start putting the building blocks in place to seeking long-term solutions. That is why we committed to a patient bill of rights, that is why we have committed to a task force for nurses so we can address those situations, and that is why we are reinvesting.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: In fact, I would indicate to you some of the mail that has been coming our way. This is a letter from the Canadian Nurses Association, Mary Ellen Jeans, executive director:

"I would like to congratulate your government for making a commitment towards reinvesting" -

The Speaker: Thank you.

PROVISION OF INFORMATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. From 1991 to 1995, Ontarians were able to know who the biggest corporate polluters in the province were. The NDP government of the day yearly initiated and published its annual Offences Against the Environment report, but your government immediately stopped publishing this report. Perhaps it's because you're trying to protect your corporate friends, or perhaps you're protecting your own government. We all know about the MNR breaking Ontario's environmental laws and being caught. But thanks to the work of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, some of whom are in the gallery today - the ones your ministry tried to charge $20,000 to get information which should be free to the public - you have at least been ordered to release this information.

Minister, you can run but you can't hide. We know that the 1996 waste water discharge report has been ready since last October. Stop trying to operate in secrecy behind closed doors. Will you release that report today?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): No, I can't release it today because it's not ready to be released today, but it will be released within weeks.

Ms Churley: Minister, do you have to do a little work on it before you put it out to the public? It has been ready since October and you've been foot-dragging for months before that. Maybe the reason you no longer publish the Offences Against the Environment report is because you are simply not enforcing as many environmental laws because of the layoffs. We know that fines and prosecutions have gone way down, and we know why.

This is another example of how your phoney tax scheme affects our health and our community. Stop hiding and stop protecting your corporate friends. The public has the right to know how or if environmental laws are being upheld in this province. Minister, will you please tell this House today when you will table prosecution data concerning our environmental laws? Tell us today when you are going to let the public know what they have the right to know.

Hon Mr Sterling: As the member opposite knows, this information is available through the freedom of information laws and will be provided to anyone who asks specific information about these prosecutions. They can obtain that information. It has always been available; it will be available in the future.

There has been a change in focus, however, by our government. Our government is more interested in stopping the pollution than they are in prosecuting and penalizing people.

Ms Churley: It's because you don't have enough people out there, Norm. That is ridiculous.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Riverdale, come to order.

Hon Mr Sterling: We are continuing to prosecute some people and some companies as strenuously as had been done before. However -

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. You asked the question; he's answering it, that's all.

Ms Churley: I didn't like the answer.

The Speaker: I noticed.

Hon Mr Sterling: My directors, my field officers, have gone out into the field. What they have been able to do is transform the environmental field into preventing problems -

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: - rather than allowing them to continue to occur and prosecutions therefore being necessary. We will continue to prosecute the bad actors -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, that's out of order. I want you to withdraw that comment.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): What did I say?

The Speaker: If you don't withdraw it, I'll have to name you. Just withdraw the comment.

Mr Agostino: I'll withdraw whatever you asked me to withdraw.

1430

HOME CARE

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is for the minister responsible for seniors' issues. Last year in this House I raised concerns about our local community care access centre. This is the largest community care access centre in the province, located a seven-iron shot away from the Prime Minister's residence, a Prime Minister who has cut transfer payments to this government by $2 billion, thereby making it more difficult to provide for seniors, disabled individuals and people recovering from surgery.

Our government is spending an additional $170 million on community-based long-term care - all Ontario dollars, no help from Mr Rock. But there are concerns that this is still not enough.

In January, Minister, you announced a series of fact-finding reviews across Ontario to study the situation. Could the minister report back to the House on the results of these reviews?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I'd like to thank the member and all the members from the Ottawa-Carleton area who brought to my attention the concerns about access to community supports for seniors and the disabled.

It's true that Ottawa's is the largest CCAC. We're spending about $70 million, entirely with Ontario taxpayer dollars, no additional support from the federal government in what we spend for seniors in Ottawa-Carleton. But we undertook this intensive review of the need and the demand in that area, and after the review we awarded an additional $3 million to eliminate all waiting lists for nursing services in Ottawa-Carleton.

This additional injection of money has allowed the board to begin the new year without a deficit, and in fact we are cash-flowing to the Ottawa CCAC in acknowledgement of this expanded growth.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Jackson: This will result in hiring additional nurses and therapists.

I also want to indicate that a total of $35 million was distributed -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Guzzo: Seniors in Ottawa and indeed across the province see that this government has acknowledged the growth in demand for home care and responded to it with a coordinated plan.

Given that this is one-time funding, could the minister explain how the government will continue to answer the rising demand for these services?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): That's only enough to pay for one day.

Hon Mr Jackson: The interjection from the Liberal health critic says this will only pay for one day. I want to assure him that the amount of money we got from the federal government for home care in the last budget wouldn't buy five minutes of home care for the seniors in this province, not five minutes.

The truth is that in the city of Toronto alone, $13.7 million was provided in additional - this money was not budgeted for. The Premier and my colleague the health minister found the additional $13 million to ensure that there isn't a single waiting list for nursing services in the city of Toronto.

The government has provided additional funding through $93 million that was announced on April 20, and that money will assist with community-based supports by relieving pressures in emergency departments by providing home care, to relieve pressure on weekends and after-hour hospital discharges - $1.2 billion in additional money.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Jackson: In the Ottawa-Carleton area alone, $36.8 million more will go for its seniors and disabled.

Our plan is working because -

The Speaker: Thank you.

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

Mr Peter North (Elgin): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. You would know that in the budget previous to this one, there was a water and sewer fund. Municipalities across Elgin county have inquired in one way or another with regard to that water and sewer fund. Some have made applications; they've met the deadlines and made applications. Also, there's an issue with regard to a landfill in my particular riding, Green Lane landfill.

I wonder if you could bring me and the municipalities of Elgin up to date with regard to those two issues.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): The $200-million fund to help municipalities that have trouble meeting environmental standards for drinking water and for sewage treatment - we've been considering those applications. We did grant six applications worth about $18 million in total, but there is an expectation that I will be announcing within two or three weeks quite a large number of projects which would include, I would hope, some of the municipalities in your own riding.

With regard to the Green Lane landfill site, my ministry is reviewing that particular file and I will consider the recommendations they make to me once they have made the recommendations with regard to that particular file.

Mr North: Concerning the projects I referred to with regard to water and sewers, is there going to be a first-round, second-round, third-round process with regard to the doling out of dollars or will we see that in a process where it will be a blanket announcement across the province? If particular municipalities in Elgin are not successful, will there be any other opportunities to access funds for projects in Elgin in particular? These projects are very much needed.

Hon Mr Sterling: The way we have proceeded is that we announced the first six, and we will announce another much larger number which will come up in the not-too-far-distant future. The municipalities will have an opportunity to either indicate that they are going to go ahead with the projects or that they are not going to go ahead with the projects. I expect a third announcement somewhere down the line once the second group of municipalities has had the opportunity to see what the offer on the table is. The funding is not for 100% of the projects, therefore there may be some municipalities that feel they do not have enough money to go ahead with their particular project and may deny the assistance, so to speak. There will probably be a smaller third segment, but the major funding, or the major initiative, will be taken within a matter of weeks.

BUDGET

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. The budget is the key document that Ontario uses to evaluate how we stand financially. It's important that it be a fair and clear document. In my opinion, the budget you presented no longer is fair and clear. I'll be specific. I think it's virtually impossible for Ontario now to understand the state of our finances. In the last 90 days you've moved about $1.7 billion of expenses that were planned for this fiscal year, the one we're in now, and the next two years back to last year and you wrote them off, including, I might add, about $1 billion of education expenses that we've been anticipating in the next three years. So rather than a deficit of $5.2 billion that you reported, I think an argument can be made that the real number was perhaps closer to $3.5 billion.

My question is this: Is the Provincial Auditor in agreement with the way you have reported the 1997-98 deficit?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The Provincial Auditor is quite in agreement with the PSAAB basis of accounting, which requires us, as the honourable member knows, to account for those services now in the year the decision is made for those expenditures. He raises a perfectly valid example with respect to the teachers' pension plan.

In our previous year, last year's budget a year ago, May 6, 1997, we allocated some $250 million, which was an offer we were making to the Ontario Teachers' Federation with respect to factor 85 early retirement. That decision was made for the fiscal year 1997-98. We recently came to an agreement with the teachers and the Ontario Teachers' Federation, as he well knows, which is going to cost Ontario an additional $725 million, bringing the total to $975 million, accurately and appropriately accounted for in the year in which the decision was made.

Mr Phillips: I never mentioned the word "pension." The question was very clear. Ontario needs assurance that we are getting an accurate reflection of the state of our finances. In the last 90 days you moved $1.7 billion worth of expenses that you had planned to make in the years ahead back to last year. I say again, if this were a publicly traded company, I'm not sure the securities commission would pass these books.

The question is very clear: not whether the Provincial Auditor wants what you call PSAAB accounting, but did you pre-clear with the Provincial Auditor the way you have treated this $1.7 billion worth of expenses?

Hon Mr Eves: The Deputy Minister of Finance in the Ministry of Finance is in constant conversation with the Provincial Auditor when it comes to decisions such as ones that are made with respect to the PSAAB basis of accounting. The member may find it very difficult to believe, having been a member of a cabinet whose Treasurer claimed one year they had a surplus, and then when the NDP government got into power and an independent, accurate accounting of the books - talking about moving money around, he sat in a cabinet that literally moved around hundreds of millions of dollars and put it in the wrong year to make themselves look good so they could pat themselves on the back. It didn't do you much good. You didn't get re-elected in 1990.

We don't have two sets of books in the province any more; there's one set of books, so everybody knows exactly where they stand and you can't do the type of fiscal manoeuvring that you people did in 1990.

1440

CARIBANA

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Each year over one million tourists flock to Toronto from all over Canada, the United States, Europe and the Caribbean for a 10-day Caribana festival. This community event pumps over $250 million in tourism revenue into the Toronto economy and the province collects, we believe, some $30 million in taxes out of this event alone.

The entire festival, as I know you know, is in jeopardy. Caribana needs $600,000 to build costumes and to organize the festival. The city of Toronto has agreed to contribute $350,000 to the festival this year, but this funding hinges on the province's contributing your share of the funding.

We understand that there are problems with the organizing efforts, and we don't want to in any way belittle those, but we also believe it's crucial that Caribana take place this year. We want to know, will you show your support of this festival by committing funds to ensure that Caribana does in fact take place this year?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I certainly want to say right off the bat that this government supports Caribana. It is a major part of our tourism season, and certainly we're going to do everything we can to work with the city of Toronto and also the advisory committee of Caribana and the CCC organization to ensure that Caribana will be a success. So we are fully committed and behind it. I just want the honourable member to know that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I hear the minister saying quite clearly that this is an important tourism event, that it is an important cultural event per se and that it brings in a great deal of money, obviously, for the province and for the city. I heard you say that. I also heard you say that you're going to work with the advisory committee and the Caribbean Cultural Committee.

What we didn't hear you say is this: Are you committing yourself this year to making sure the money will flow so that the event continues; and are you committing yourself as well for the long term, in terms of working with the CCC and the city, to make sure the money will flow so that we can avoid the perennial problems they face? Are you committing yourself to that?

Hon Mr Palladini: I want to make it very clear that the honourable member understands how important Caribana is to the city of Toronto -

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): We know that, Al.

Hon Mr Palladini: Yes, I know that. What I also want to say to the honourable member is that you're right, there hasn't been multi-year funding in place, something that should have been in place while you were in government as well. This government is going to take a look at how we can make it happen and make sure that Caribana is going to be a very viable asset to the city of Toronto.

CHILD PROTECTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I read in Thursday's Globe and Mail that the one-year anniversary of an inquest into the tragic death of a child here in Toronto is fast approaching. I ask the minister what steps she has undertaken to improve the provincial child protection system in light of the recommendations of that inquest.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I would like to congratulate the honourable member for his private member's resolution asking for more resources to go into the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program which, as he knows, is something we're doing in the budget this year to increase that program, which might actually help us prevent families from ending up at the door of a children's aid society.

We have used the last year since those inquests and since the recommendations from the task force to do a number of things. There are 220 more front-line staff out there helping children's aid societies to protect children. We are putting those staff and existing staff through additional training. There's the new risk assessment system that helps them make better decisions about which children are at risk. We have started the work on the new computer technology, which will ensure that children don't fall through the cracks between the agencies.

We have also had a review of the legislation by an expert panel, which will be coming out shortly, and after an initial consultation period on that, we would like to move forward with new legislation that looks at some of the issues that were raised in the task force and the inquest; for example, definitions of "neglect."

Mr Arnott: Last week's provincial budget also announced a government commitment to put an additional $170 million into our children's aid societies. My supplementary question is this: How is the government going to use these funds, and what are the next steps in the government's plan to improve our child protection system?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The money that has been allocated in the budget, I would like to remind the members opposite, in case they missed the significance, is base funding for children's aid societies One of the challenges, of course, is that the old funding formula, which has existed for many years and under previous governments, has this sort of emergency funding at the end of the year, which makes it very difficult for a child welfare agency to keep good, trained staff. With this new money in base funding, we're going to be able to fix the way they get funded so it will better support front-line staff and train staff.

But we also know we need to continue with more front-line workers with additional training, and another important piece of our child care reforms is to improve the foster parent system. Our child welfare agencies depend on those foster parents. They're wonderful people. They give an incredible amount of their own time and their own resources to help these troubled children, and we want to make sure we can have more of such committed foster parents and that they are financially compensated for the efforts they make.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The farmers of Ontario are extremely disappointed with the Harris government for not living up to their election promise. Thirty-seven farm organizations urged the government to restore agriculture and reinvest in core programs such as research, marketing, environmental issues, food inspection and safety nets. In regard to last week's budget, they said you failed to deliver. They said you heard their message but you ignored it.

Why did you not listen to the farmers? Why did you ignore the agricultural industry of Ontario?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I tell my colleague across the way that the Premier met with the farmers of Ontario at the plowing match and certainly I've had the opportunity of meeting with them on a number of occasions.

Research and technology transfers are up. As a matter of fact, the entire budget for the agrifood industry is up. We are looking towards keeping our rural young people where they were born and raised, in that rural surrounding.

I'm quite pleased to be able to tell my colleagues in the House that agriculture is in good hands. The budget is up -

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): That's not what the farmers are saying.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I see the member for Oriole has many farms in his riding. The member for Oriole is quite an expert at farming, I'm sure.

Mr Hoy: Minister, what your finance minister is doing is cooking the books. All you and your finance minister are doing is cooking the books. You have included $59 million in estimated crop insurance -

Interjections.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): "Cooking" is a legitimate word, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): There's nothing out of order about "cooking."

Mr Hoy: Minister, you have included $59 million in estimated crop insurance claims and $20 million in one-time, ad hoc assistance for ice storm damage. You are using disasters as an excuse to pull cheap political tricks with the budget. When the crop insurance claims and the ice storm relief money are subtracted, your budget is only $261 million. That is a net loss to the agricultural industry, an industry that means so much to this province. After all, you promised that not one nickel would be cut from agriculture. Minister, you must agree with the 37 farm organizations that responded to your budget by saying, "A promise made, a promise broken." Minister, you broke your promise.

1450

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I find it somewhat ironic that someone from the Liberal Party accuses this government of cooking books. I believe they may have written the book on cooking the books.

The farmers of Ontario asked the government to continue the provincial sales tax rebate. That was announced on the first day of April: another promise kept. We were asked by the farmers of Ontario to correct the farm tax rebate. We had to go back every year. It has now been corrected: $170 million farmers do not have to pay and then get the rebate.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Essex-Kent, you've got to allow the minister to answer your question.

Interjection.

The Speaker: It's not provocation to answer the question. Minister.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Interestingly, when there is good news the opposition has great difficulty in listening.

The farm tax rebate was corrected: $35 million that's going into rural Ontario to promote and keep our rural young people in place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I want to hear the answer. Minister.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Another $30 million last year to create employment in rural communities.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Brampton North, I could throw you out because you're not in your seat.

New question, leader of the third party.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Mr Speaker, I'm not done.

The Speaker: Minister of Agriculture, you know, I was going to let you sum up and then the government side starts heckling and it gets to the point that there's no argument.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I don't want to debate it. You were done, in my opinion.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns a very serious situation that has developed across northwestern Ontario. Your government has downloaded the cost of providing public health on to municipalities. I don't need to tell you how important public health is in terms of disease prevention, in terms of dealing with a number of food safety and water safety issues. Your government has downloaded those costs on to municipalities.

Many of the municipalities in northwestern Ontario have said they simply cannot handle the cost that you've downloaded. Not only that, but they simply don't have the knowledge, the infrastructure, in place to take over public health. As a result, the northwestern health unit, the public health unit for all the communities west of Thunder Bay, is having a very difficult time. In fact, we understand they're having to borrow money on a bank loan to finance their day-to-day operations.

Minister, can you tell us what your government is doing to ensure that there is good public health across northwestern Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Obviously public health is extremely important and the programs that are being provided by the public health providers across the province have a tremendous impact.

We have been working with the public health units and we continue to work with AMO and all of the municipalities to ensure that each municipality and each public health provider is able to provide the necessary programs, and we will continue to work with people in northwestern Ontario to ensure that the appropriate standards can be met and the appropriate programs provided.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm seeking unanimous consent to permit the wearing in the House of ribbons recognizing the hepatitis C victims.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Hold on, I want to be clear. Member for York South, take your seat, please.

The member for York South is requesting unanimous consent to wear the ribbon that is on his lapel. Agreed? Agreed.

PETITIONS

NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it states:

"Whereas nursing is key to quality health care; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to provide high-quality care; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be heard and consulted on health care issues; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be recognized and treated as equals in the health care system; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to have meaningful participation in all aspects of health care reform; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be advocates for their communities and the people they care for without fear of reprisal; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to work in settings that are free from harassment and discrimination and that nurture learning, diversity, personal growth, job satisfaction and mutual support; and

"Whereas nurses want the right work in conditions that promote and foster professionalism and teamwork; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to deliver care in an integrated, publicly funded, not-for-profit health care system that is grounded in the principles of the Canada Health Act;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to honour, promote and respect the nurses' bill of rights as outlined above and to ensure that these rights are enshrined in all aspects of health care."

I affix my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions forwarded to me by Bill Fuller on behalf of SWOAR, Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas each year in Ontario approximately 300 workers are killed on the job, several thousand die of occupational diseases and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas during the past decade the Workers' Health and Safety Centre proved to be the most cost-effective, WCB-funded prevention organization dedicated to worker health and safety concerns; and

"Whereas the WCB provides over 80% of its legislated prevention funding to several employer-controlled safety associations and less than 20% to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre recently lost several million dollars in funding and course revenue due to government changes to legislated training requirements; and

"Whereas 30% of Workers' Health and Safety Centre staff were laid off due to these lost training funds; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre now faces an additional 25% cut to its 1998 budget, which will be used to augment new funding for employer safety associations in the health, education and service sector; and

"Whereas the WCB's 1998 planned baseline budget cuts for safety associations and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre will be disproportionately against the workers' centre and reduce its 1998 budget allocation to less than 15% of the WCB prevention funding,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the WCB's proposed cuts and direct the WCB to increase the Workers' Health and Safety Centre's funding to at least 50% of the WCB's legislated prevention funding; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the WCB to significantly increase its legislated prevention funding in order to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

I add my name to theirs.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I continue to receive these petitions. As a matter of fact, these are from Sudbury and Thunder Bay. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has passed Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons; and

"Whereas we welcome real gun control and support those portions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms, new offences related to firearms smuggling and trafficking; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns has done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with non-practical effect on the traffic in illegal firearms or the use of guns in violent crimes; and

"Whereas the gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will take police officers off the street and involve them in bureaucracy rather than fighting crime, and will make the task of real gun control more difficult and dangerous for police officers;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the province of Ontario to continue to urge the government of Canada to repeal from Bill C-68 those provisions for a compulsory registration of all firearms."

1500

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition signed by a thousand of my constituents and it relates to the opening of a casino in my riding. Of course they are totally opposed to it, and it reads as follows:

"We, the residents of Gloucester and the surrounding area, wish to express our firm opposition to the establishment of a gambling casino in this residential community, in close proximity to two local high schools" - that is, the Lester B. Pearson high school and the Gloucester High School. "Though you may already be aware of our concerns, we wish to communicate to the Legislature the widespread opposition which this has generated in the community.

"We also wish to communicate our disappointment in the total lack of democratic consultation on the part of our local city council. Decisions were made and voted on prior to any meaningful public input.

"We are also hereby expressing our concern for those families who will be hurt through gambling addiction, with the resulting problems of suicide, divorce, family violence and impoverishment.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose the establishment of a charity casino in Gloucester, Ontario."

I have affixed my signature.

ABORTION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition that's signed by many residents of the regional municipality of Sudbury. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition which I'd like to present today. It was forwarded to me for presentation and signed by 25 residents of Ontario, most of whom live in my riding. In accordance with the standing orders, as is my practice, I'll summarize my petition by saying that it supports the current rules regarding black bear hunting.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services is currently engaged in a restructuring process across all communities in Ontario which will affect all people and their families supported by developmental services; and

"Whereas the consultation process was selective and limited; and

"Whereas those who require services are being pitted against those who have services; and

"Whereas service to one group should not be at the expense of another, regardless of age or language; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services `corporate agenda' is one of wholesale destruction of the support system for the vulnerable; and

"Whereas this corporate agenda will threaten the health, safety and likely the lives of many disabled people;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to stop this destructive restructuring project and provide adequate funding for quality services to the developmentally disabled."

I add my signature.

TUITION FEES

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition that's signed by hundreds of students from the University of Toronto, calling on post-secondary education to be accessible for all.

"Whereas student and youth unemployment continues to run at more than twice the national unemployment rate; and

"Whereas a post-secondary education is often the only way to get a decent job; and

"Whereas the Harris government is raising tuition fees by 20% over the next two years and deregulating fees in graduate programs; and

"Whereas this is reducing access to education for workers and the poor, as evidenced by the drop in university applications, especially among the children of the poor; and

"Further, since education should be a right for all, not just the wealthy;

"We, the undersigned, call on the provincial government to immediately freeze tuition and create a grants program for needy students."

I've affixed my name to that petition.

PORT DOVER HARBOUR MUSEUM

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and is titled "Open the Museum." It is signed by people from London, St Thomas, Port Stanley, Eden, as well as residents of my riding of Norfolk.

"Whereas the Port Dover Harbour Museum addition was built with taxpayers' dollars in 1992 but has never opened to the public; and

"Whereas jobs in tourism, fishing and the marine industry are key to our area economy and way of life; and

"Whereas lawsuits, regulations and red tape have kept the museum closed; and

"Whereas all four levels of government and their attendant bureaucracies have proven incapable of opening the museum;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cut through the red tape and open the new addition to the Port Dover Harbour Museum."

I agree with this petition and hereby affix my signature to it.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is trying to impose so-called charity casinos on 44 communities across Ontario as a vehicle to make profits from gambling for government coffers; and

"Whereas these gambling halls will bleed from the communities on which they are imposed the discretionary dollars which might otherwise be spent on goods and services; and

"Whereas the Harris government is attempting to bribe cash-strapped municipalities to accept the new gambling halls by promising to pay a so-called administration fee to operate slot machines in the casinos; and

"Whereas the Harris government is attempting to coerce municipalities into accepting the new 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week gambling halls by suggesting that charities may not receive funding;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Mike Harris government to halt the imposition of new gambling halls, so-called charity casinos, on communities across Ontario."

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement with this petition.

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): A petition to the Legislature in regard to the important role the United Empire Loyalists played in Ontario. I will read the main line:

"That the government of Ontario ensure that a suitable learning unit on the United Empire Loyalists be included in the history curriculum for Ontario schools."

This is signed by a number of constituents from the Guelph area and it's my pleasure to add my signature.

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario is owned by the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has opposed public support for maintaining TVOntario as a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster by putting TVO through a privatization review; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not confirmed that full public participation will be part of this privatization review;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to hold open and honest public consultation with the people of Ontario before making a decision on the future of TVOntario."

That's signed by a good number of my constituents from places like Weagamow Lake and North Caribou, and I attach my signature as well.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition that was presented to me by Mr John Dalyrymple from Newmarket. I also have been asked by the member for York Centre, the Honourable Al Palladini, to present a similar petition on his behalf. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I am pleased to add my name to this petition.

1510

MOTIONS

1998 ONTARIO BUDGET

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move a motion respecting the debate on the budget motion without notice.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Agreed? It is agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 57(b), there be five sessional days allotted for debate on the budget motion and any amendments thereto, and that all other provisions of standing order 57 apply.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

OPPOSITION DAY

MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent to be able to the move the motion standing in the name of Mr Hampton.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it agreed? It is agreed.

Mr Silipo: I move, on behalf of Mr Hampton:

Whereas the federal Liberal government in Ottawa is negotiating a multilateral agreement on trade, ignoring the clear opposition of many provincial governments, municipalities and Canadians throughout the country; and

Whereas the MAI, negotiated for years in secret by the federal Liberals before activists forced it into the open, would provide a charter of freedoms for corporate investors with no clear benefits for the people of Canada; and

Whereas supporters of MAI, especially the trade minister and other members of the Liberal cabinet in Ottawa, show no appreciation for the importance of strong environmental protection, high-quality health care and vibrant public education to the stable economy of our communities, our province and our country; and

Whereas the Ontario government has joined other provinces in expressing reservations about the draft MAI; and

Whereas growing opposition throughout Canada and the world has forced a delay in negotiations but has not killed the proposed MAI;

Be it therefore resolved that this House urges the federal government to immediately demand a halt to the current MAI negotiations, and call on the government to refuse to be part of any agreement that would enshrine the rights of corporate investors over the rights of the people of Canada and other countries around the world.

I am happy to have the chance to lead off debate for our caucus on this. We had placed this motion last week and agreed at that time to have it delayed for a week so that we could deal with the equally important but more time-pressing issue of the hepatitis C resolution, which we were happy to do. We are, however, happy that this motion is in front of us this afternoon.

The "whereases" and the resolution itself speak for themselves but, as always, it's appropriate to expand a little bit on those premises.

We believe that the multilateral agreement on trade that has been under negotiation between Canada and the other countries that belong to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development would pose some very serious problems for this country and for this province. We believe that because of the limitations that would be placed upon our ability as a country and as a provincial jurisdiction to make laws protecting our interests in our own businesses, in our own ventures, in our own areas, whether those be in the area of health care or many other areas, it would be wrong to proceed with this agreement.

This is an agreement that has been under negotiation for a few years now. The negotiations began some time back in 1995. They began, as our resolution clearly sets out, in secret, by the federal government's talking and negotiating with representatives of other governments from the OECD countries. In fact, it took some time before the federal government admitted publicly that these negotiations were actually taking place. That speaks volumes to the concerns that not only we have but that thousands of Canadians have about why our country, our government, would be negotiating such an agreement without even being prepared to admit for a long time that this agreement would be there.

We know that there has now been a pause, but our concerns remain. I want to come back to that at the end of my comments. But just to set a little context, what is it that this particular agreement, known in the jargon as MAI, this multilateral agreement on trade, would do? If this agreement were to proceed in its current form or even in slightly amended forms, it would mean that the treaty would prohibit any government signing this agreement from setting conditions for foreign investment, such as that local people be hired or that locally made goods be purchased. It would prohibit, for example, governments from ever giving preference to a company because it is locally based. It would set up a tribunal where foreign corporations could demand compensation from governments for any law or purchasing decision that does not conform to the treaty. The decision of this tribunal, whose proceedings would be completely secret, would be binding and unappealable and would take precedence over any of the country's existing laws.

Clearly the jurisdiction, freedom and independence of Canada and the provinces to make decisions in the areas we now do would be severely compromised if this agreement were to proceed.

Some people have said, "What's so different between this and the North American free trade agreement?" We as a political party continue to be opposed to and have significant reservations about the North American trade agreement, but at least there one could argue that there is an ability, although difficult to implement, for governments to withdraw after giving six months' notice.

In this particular agreement, if the MAI were to proceed, countries would not be able to withdraw, once they signed the agreement, for five years, and if a country did decide to withdraw, all foreign investments made during the time the treaty was in force would be given protection for a period of 20 years. So it really binds future governments; it would bind future governments in a very serious and significant way. That is another major concern we have.

But if that were not enough, one other major area I want to highlight briefly is what would happen with respect to the areas of expropriation, as they're called, under the treaty. The treaty would force countries to compensate foreign corporations for expropriation. As the treaty is currently drafted, these corporations would have to be compensated for any government measure that causes them the loss not only of current assets but of any future profits they might have made.

Essentially, to put it in language that I find easier to understand and that perhaps most people would also appreciate, it would mean that in not a long time, the standards international corporations could find as being the lowest standards in any of the countries signatory to this would become the standards that would apply to any country.

If we had, for example, higher standards on environmental concerns, if we had higher standards with respect to any other areas this treaty would affect, it would mean that a company that could find a provision in another country that would be part of this agreement would be able to claim that the same kinds of standards ought to be applied, because we could not apply any higher standards and preferential treatment could not be given to companies that were locally based, whether Ontarian or Canadian, that were prepared to adhere to those higher standards.

The long and the short of it is that this would diminish greatly our ability as a jurisdiction and as a country to continue to set the rules that we collectively, through the people and through the democratic process, believe are appropriate.

1520

It is not about broadening trade. We certainly can agree with the notion of broadening trade. It is about - and this is the greater concern we have - limiting severely the rights of governments to make decisions and giving to international corporations the right to make, directly and indirectly, more and more of these decisions, to set more and more of those standards.

We understand now that the negotiations have paused, that there has been a period of six months called for a pause. Our concern here is that while we rejoice about the fact that negotiations are not proceeding, we do not for one minute believe that this issue is dead. Quite frankly, we want it to die. We don't believe that the current approach makes any sense and we don't want to see what trade minister Sergio Marchi said, that they're simply making a pit stop on the journey to a deal. We want to make sure that this deal, in its current form or in any form that resembles it, does not continue, does not proceed.

We call upon this Legislative Assembly today to join other legislative assemblies across this country - issues that have crossed partisan positions - to take a very strong position.

I just want to note in closing that even our own economic development minister here in Ontario, Mr Palladini, apparently said after a meeting with his federal and provincial colleagues, "We certainly don't want to create an atmosphere where investors are going to come into Ontario and ask us to alter our environmental standards." We agree with that. We urge the government members to support this resolution and we hope that our Liberal colleagues, despite the fact that it's their cousins in Ottawa who are trying to push this deal through, will also see the wisdom of supporting this resolution and retaining, by virtue of adopting this resolution, the sense that it should be the governments of this country - the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces - that continue to have the jurisdiction to set standards, and not companies from other countries.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): I am pleased to have the opportunity today to address this very important issue. The Ontario government welcomes public discussion on the multilateral agreement on investment, which the federal government is currently negotiating with the member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Members of the OECD include Canada and most of the world's industrialized economies, like the United States, most European countries, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico and Korea.

I understand that at last week's OECD ministerial meeting, a decision was taken to extend negotiations. Some parties, including the Canadian federal government, feel it would be preferable to continue discussions in the larger forum of the World Trade Organization, or WTO, as it is known. The WTO includes both developed and developing countries and would reflect a broader range of concerns, as well as including some of the jurisdictions where Canadian business has experienced problems in the past. In any case, all countries appear to agree that it is essential to take some time necessary to reach a good agreement.

The central purpose of the agreement would be to provide a broad multilateral framework of agreed principles and commitments governing the treatment of foreign investment. This way, all countries can participate on an equal footing in the international marketplace for investment.

The Ontario government supports the negotiation of an investment treaty. However, we want to ensure that any agreement provides meaningful commercial benefits for Canadian businesses that make investments in other countries. As well, the agreement must be carefully thought out to ensure that it resolves the actual problems business is experiencing abroad rather than creating new problems at home.

On this first point, business people consulted by our government indicate that the MAI does address some issues of importance to investors. However, the agreement does not touch on some of the more fundamental problems that business faces when investing in third markets. Some of these problems have had to do with the need for common accounting rules, transparent laws and regulations that clearly identify ownership of real and personal property. Our position is that governments involved in negotiating the agreement should work on ways to address some of the investment issues I have just mentioned.

In addition, we must ensure that the investor-state dispute settlement provisions provide an adequate means of redress for investors. The dispute settlement process should be transparent so that investors can better understand the process and know how to present a claim successfully.

Although the Ontario government is willing to support an investment treaty in principle, there are a number of issues that must be resolved before we can make a firm commitment of support.

Ontario has particular concerns with the expropriation provisions of the MAI. Our position is that the MAI must contain provisions to ensure that governments can continue to introduce regulatory changes, such as including protection of the environment, without being challenged by investors. In other words, Ontario must retain its ability to enforce existing environmental and labour standards, and indeed to strengthen them over time, without being exposed to claims for compensation by affected parties.

In fact, to be of significant benefit, provisions should be included in the MAI to ensure that jurisdictions cannot relax environmental or labour standards to attract foreign investment.

Now that I have set out the Ontario government's position with regard to the MAI, please allow me a moment to move on to a broader subject - the importance of international trade to Ontario's economy. Make no mistake about it: This government places a very high priority on Ontario's international trading arrangements. I want to take a few minutes to describe just how vital international trade is to Ontario's economy.

Our economic growth, job creation and future economic prosperity depend on how successfully the private sector takes advantage of international trade and investment opportunities. Our commitment is to helping Ontario companies discover and develop new export opportunities.

Ontario has one of the world's most open export-oriented economies. Ontario's exports of goods and services to foreign markets have increased by about 35% over the past three years. In 1997, the value of our sales in foreign markets represented the equivalent of 40% of the value of all of Ontario's economic activity. Exports support 1.5 million jobs across the province. About 10,000 direct and indirect jobs are created for every $1 billion of goods exported.

Today, our exports are chiefly high value added goods and services. A significant portion come from knowledge-based, technologically advanced industries such as machinery, equipment, automobiles, telecommunications and financial and business services.

Some key factors that contribute to Ontario's export successes include our central location in North America; the fact that we have a cost-competitive, educated and productive workforce; a well-developed infrastructure; competitive corporate tax rates; a high quality of life; a competitive Canadian dollar; a multicultural population, which makes Ontario Canada's most ethnically diverse province; and competitive, technology-intensive products and services.

As an exporting jurisdiction, Ontario has performed well. But it could be doing much better. In 1997, almost 90% of our exports went to the United States, and they were highly concentrated in a few sectors such as the automotive industry. According to Statistics Canada data, about 3% of our exports go to Asia and 1% to Latin America, two of the world's fastest-growing economic regions. Only 3.5% of our exports go to Europe, and less than 1% to Africa and the Middle East.

In international trade we need to continue to seek out new markets and diversify our export base. While we have not in the past concentrated on such markets as Latin America, the recent Canada-Chile free trade agreement and the current free trade agreement of the Americas negotiations should provide us with both the incentive and the opportunity to engage in these markets. Indeed, the Ontario government will be following up on the recent successful Team Canada mission to Latin America to ensure that Ontario business benefits from the opportunities identified.

1530

As the private and public sectors work together in Ontario to explore new export opportunities, diversification will be one of our key challenges. We need more exporting companies, a more diverse range of export markets and a more diverse range of goods and services to sell internationally.

The Pacific Rim nations will need significant amounts of infrastructure development in the coming years. Ontario, which is a world leader in key infrastructure, such as transportation, telecommunications, education, resource management, environmental services and health, is well positioned to capture a share of this market.

Latin American import growth is predicted to exceed 12% a year through the year 2000. The Mercosur trading union, which is Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay with the associate members Chile and Bolivia, the world's fourth-largest integrated market, is experiencing dramatic growth. Ontario's combined exports to Mercosur in 1997 totalled $754 million, a 107% increase over 1996. Mexico imported $565 million from Ontario in 1997. As Mexican markets recover from the downturn caused by the 1995 peso crisis, important opportunities for Ontario exporters are emerging in a range of economic sectors.

Stimulating Ontario's export capacity to the Pacific Rim and Latin America alone will create thousands of jobs for Ontarians.

The government helps build Ontario's export base through the work of its Ontario International Trade Corp and conducts a number of international trade missions each year.

In January, for example, Premier Harris and members of the Ontario International Trade Corp travelled with representatives of about 175 Ontario companies on a Team Canada trade mission to Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. It was a productive trip to an international market of growing importance. Ontario's exports to those four countries exceeded $1.4 billion in 1997.

The government continues to plan other international trade missions to enhance Ontario's profile and to help open up new export markets.

Last December, just prior to the Team Canada trade mission to Latin America, the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism organized the first-ever Trade Winds forum for Ontario companies looking to do business in Latin America. It proved to be very successful. More than 200 Ontario companies took part in the conference and 11 corporations co-sponsored it. Top business leaders from small and large business firms shared their expertise and advice. The forum enhanced Ontario's ability to reach new export markets and to create related jobs. As a result, the ministry will hold more such conferences in advance of major trade missions.

As the Ontario government's lead trade agency, the OITC strives to make it even easier and simpler for companies to use export development services offered by all ministries. One such service offered by OITC is the new exporters to border states program. It provides how-to seminars for Ontario business people wanting to enter or to expand operations in the American market.

This program offers business people the opportunity to travel to key American markets, such as Buffalo, Detroit, Boston, Atlanta and Chicago, and to get concrete information from leading professionals about matters such as banking, accounting, business immigration, marketing, legal matters, distribution and moving goods through customs. Last year the ministry organized about a dozen such workshops for more than 160 companies.

The Ontario government is committed to creating a more export-oriented culture in this province. To that end, the government has worked closely with our federal counterparts, municipal officials and business associations to create the Canada-Ontario Export Forum. The group, also known as Trade Team Ontario, provides potential exporters with vital information and counselling.

The Ontario government has also created a Web site with information about our economy, our business climate and our business successes. The home page address is www.Ontario-Canada.com. The ministry has also completed the transformation of Challenges, a traditional business-oriented ministry publication, into an online version that engages business people in an interactive discussion of the economic challenges facing Ontario. The ministry has also launched the Ontario Business Report, a newsletter focusing on Ontario business and on the trends, challenges and issues that are reshaping the province's business climate. Issued 10 times a year, the report is distributed to about 15,000 businesses, entrepreneurs, associations and government offices.

The Ontario International Trade Corp is the government's lead export development agency. Its mandate lies in building an export culture in Ontario that stimulates job creation, coaching and assisting companies to respond to world export opportunities. In 1997-98, the OITC worked with more than 1,800 firms, helping them to start exporting or to expand their international marketing efforts. The OITC helped 270 Ontario companies achieve more than $360 million in export sales in 1997-98.

OITC's functions include promoting and marketing Ontario as a high-quality supplier of goods and services to the world, particularly in the growing economies of Asia and Latin America, as well as other promising jurisdictions beyond North America; delivering affordable programs and services geared to helping Ontario business export; helping businesses identify high-growth markets and address export barriers; and brokering trade by informing Ontario firms about potential business opportunities and linking them with foreign buyers.

The OITC has a particular interest in working with Ontario's small and medium-sized firms, which often lack the expertise, knowledge and resources to capitalize on export opportunities.

Only about 15% of Ontario's small and medium-sized businesses sell their goods and services internationally. Of those that do, few focus on markets beyond the nearby states. OITC responds to the specific needs of these clients with information and expertise to identify and respond to export opportunities; training in how to develop new markets; and help in finding partners to share the cost and risks of venturing abroad.

Currently, the OITC's client base comprises approximately 16,000 small and medium-sized enterprises, domestic and international business organizations, representatives of the federal government and foreign governments, and international business contacts who once resided in Ontario. In addition, through its programs and services, the OITC makes contact with about 5,100 exporters each year.

The government takes part in Team Canada trade missions and leads its own Team Ontario missions to open doors for Ontario firms seeking business in promising international markets. OITC contributes to both of these activities.

As you can see, the Ontario government will only support a multilateral agreement on investment that will be good for Canadians and Ontarians. While international negotiations continue on that front, we will continue to move forward on our own to help position Ontario companies in the forefront of the global trading action into the next century.

1540

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to start by saying something I guess we all know, and that's how important our export business is to Ontario.

I was struck in the budget by the page that showed that Ontario's gross domestic product now is about 45% export. That's an amazingly high number. Just seven years ago it was under 30%. We now have an Ontario economy that is heavily dependent on exports. In the same document, just to provide the public with a comparison - this is the Ontario number here, 45%. We think of Japan as an export-oriented country. Less than 10% of their economy is export. Here we have in Ontario 45% of our economy dependent on exports, larger than virtually any other industrial country in the world and dramatically higher than the average for Canada. That's point one. It is in all of our interests that we encourage export development.

The second thing that struck me was that 90% of this now goes to the US. We have essentially an export-driven economy - 45% of our economy - and 90% of it goes to the US. By the way, about half of that is auto. Think about the potential risk to the Ontario economy. A huge part of our economy now is export-driven, up 50% over the last seven years; 45% of our economy is in the US, and that heavily reliant on auto.

I've always been a bit disappointed that our exports to the rest of the world have not shown much growth at all. That takes nothing away from building our business in the US, but I've been very disappointed that for the last 10 years we have not seen substantial development in our exports to the rest of the world.

It points out the risk. Business people realize that it's always risky to have one dominant customer, because if that one dominant customer's business goes a little bit bad, you've got a problem. We've benefited very much in Ontario - in fact, the Ontario economy has been driven by exports to the US. The budget points that out. That has been the key to our success over the last nine years: exports to the US, heavily auto.

There will be a downturn in the US. That's just the way it works, as we all know. It's just a question of when, hopefully not in the immediate future. When that happens, as they say, when the US sneezes, we get a cold, or as Trudeau I think used to say, when the elephant rolls over, it can crush those around it. I say to all of us, we are benefiting very much by a strong US economy - it is very much driving the Ontario economy, and thank goodness for it - but that will not last forever.

I happen to think we have an enormously unique situation here in Ontario. We have business people who live here who have come literally from around the world. I might add, by the way, that many of them came here as students. Many of our major international business people born in other countries came to university here in Ontario and chose either to stay or to go back and then come and live here in Canada. We have an enormous wealth of business talent who can do business around the world.

We also have the head offices of an awful lot of Canadian companies located here in Ontario, particularly in the GTA, plus we have here in Toronto the consular corps from virtually every country in the world.

So we have the potential, with head offices here, business people used to doing business in countries literally around the world, the access to the diplomatic corps here in Ontario, with all those things available, to dramatically improve our export business. In my opinion, let's recognize that when the US downturn happens, a lot of our businesses in Ontario are dependent on their ability to export and their key customer will see a downturn.

In my experience, it's human nature; in fact, it's almost inevitable: If the US economy turns down and the US is buying from a plant in the US and a plant in Canada, the first plant that will see its orders cut will be the Canadian plant. It's just the way it works. The point of all that is it's in our best interest to find ways that we develop international trade on a much-accelerated basis.

Then we get down to the challenge of the specifics of the MAI agreement here. By the way, I might add, it's not an agreement; it is a proposal that's been put forward after three years of negotiations, not negotiations in secret because I can recall people talking to me three years ago about the beginning of the talks on the multinational agreement.

Then the question is, is this process the right one to reach an agreement? Let's recognize that the agreement does have a pretty profound impact on Ontario. My colleague Mike Gravelle, who is our critic for culture, and the many organizations he works with are particularly worried about the impact it could have on our Canadian cultural organizations and industry.

One of the previous speakers mentioned: "Is this the right forum? Would the World Trade Organization perhaps be a better forum for dealing with the necessary agreements?"

We are now asked to do two things. One is, do we collectively believe there is the need to increase the levels of certainty around international trade? I think if you talk to business people, they'd say there is. If they are going to invest in another country, they would like the maximum certainty that the investment is protected, that they are protected by some international laws from losing that investment. It makes sense. Similarly, I might add, individuals and companies that want to invest in Canada want the same assurances that they will have some basic protection.

At the same time, we here in Canada, we here in Ontario, want to protect ourselves from companies that would perhaps look for some way to not obey the environmental standards that we have here, our cultural demands that we have. So we are now forced to either support the current proposals coming forward on the MAI or look for another approach.

Frankly, I think there is significant concern about the specifics of the proposals that have come forward so far. While I'm very supportive of improving the clarity of international trading arrangements, I have some significant concerns about the specifics we are faced with. I'm supportive very much of a process that improves it. I'm sufficiently concerned about the specifics of the MAI that I am attracted to the motion that's before us here today.

1550

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm very pleased to have a few moments to talk about this motion of ours, introduced by our leader, because it is one of the most important issues we will ever have to deal with in this province and in this country.

I want to say that the word "mai" in Italian means "never." I hope this multilateral agreement on investments never comes to pass, because if it does, nations and citizens are going to be in serious trouble.

I want to say as well that you will recall how much of a fighter M. Chrétien was during the North American free trade agreement. He was fighting as that great Liberal, saying: "This is a bad deal. When we get into power, we're going to change it. Trust me." No sooner did that man get into power than he kind of liked it. He said: "This is good. We don't have to change it. We don't have to worry about the environment or this labour stuff, this union stuff. Who needs that kind of stuff?"

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: I'm only attacking the federal Liberals at the moment so they shouldn't get worried about this next to me here.

The federal Liberals have become the champions of free trade, the champions of multilateral agreements and investments. M. Marchi and M. Chrétien are the two biggest cheerleaders of this opening of the markets across the globe. You have M. Chrétien saying: "Globalization is inevitable. There's really nothing we can do. Let's not fight it, let's just give in. Let's just accept this deal because there's nothing we can do."

That is why he and a few other people like Professor Alan Rugman, someone who has been very well known to the Liberals federally - he's a professor who prepared a background paper on this. He did it and he advised the federal Liberal government to do so on the sneak and not let anyone know about its contents. So M. Chrétien and his fine Liberal friends have known about this for years, let's say for months, not to exaggerate, but they knew what was contained in those documents because Professor Rugman was part of those discussions.

They have kept everybody in the dark for a reason. They know federally that as soon as this issue becomes public, to the extent that people understand it, they're going to be fighting it. Most humans don't have a clue what MAI stands for. I wager to say a lot of MPPs in this room don't know what MAI stands for, let alone the millions of Ontarians across this province who have never heard of this word "mai" or MAI. They've never heard of it. It is an acronym that most people can't spell out. If the people in here don't know anything about this agreement, how do you expect that ordinary people out there would understand what this agreement is all about? They kept people in the dark.

You will know, Speaker, that when these MPPs speak about it, they use acronyms. Why do they use acronyms? Because they don't know what they stand for. Isn't that true? For example, people use the OECD. They don't spell it out. Do you know what OECD means, Speaker? It's complicated. Of course you don't know. I don't blame you. Twenty-nine industrialized countries in the world belong to this Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and these 29 developed countries are setting the rules for free trade across the globe.

Do you know who is sitting around those tables? It certainly isn't my grandmother. It certainly isn't my brother sitting at those round table discussions. I'm certain it isn't even any brother, relative, of the member from Kitchener - I am convinced of it - so he wouldn't have a clue as to its contents. Do you know who is there? The financial institutions.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Johnston.

Mr Marchese: Well, Daniel Johnson is around. He knows what this is about. He's a fine federal Liberal who left the Liberal benches a while ago.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member opposite was wondering what "mai" means. I heard recently that it means "never" in Italian. That might be helpful to the speaker.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: I'm sure he's got a word for that in German. We should work on it in a different language because it means the same in every language. It means "never" in every language. "It should not come to pass."

This agreement is being worked out by financial institutions that sit at the table, the most powerful of the Fortune 500 transnational companies, deciding the rules for international investment on this issue.

Mr Wildman: Donald Johnston -

Mr Marchese: Donald Johnston was a fine Liberal at one time. I suspect he's still a fine Liberal, but he became an independent, if I remember correctly, because there was some disagreement with his more Liberal-minded friends. But it's another matter. We shouldn't be diverted from this important discussion.

The point is that this is going on behind the scenes, similar to what the Tories have been doing in Ontario, working behind the scenes like marionettes expressing the wishes of the corporations behind them that tell them what to do. The Fortune 500 corporations, the multinationals, are writing up these agreements. That's why it's an insidious document.

This is the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well. These rights inscribed 50 years ago to give basic protections to citizens will be overridden by this MAI. We're celebrating the 50th anniversary of these basic rights, and they will be gone because these corporations are writing an economic globalization, a new economic order, a political monoculture, a world view designed for and by capital, people with a great deal of pecunia, with grana in their pockets. These are the people who are doing it, and they're doing it in a way that will override our economies, override our social, cultural and environmental rights in this province and in this country.

You will have observed, if you've followed this discussion on the multilateral agreement on investment, that there are no rules to respect our economy; there are no rules to respect our social, cultural and environmental rights. There are no rules.

I tell you this: The president of the United States Council for International Business said, "We will oppose any and all measures to create or even imply binding obligations for governments or business related to the environment or labour."

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Outrageous.

Mr Marchese: It's not even outrageous; they're clearly telling you that any protections you may want to write into this document with respect to the environment, labour, cultural and social programs are gone because the big boys are telling you they will not have them.

They are talking about eliminating performance requirements. Trade-related investment measures which in the past required corporations to invest in the local economy, hire locally or buy a certain amount of their imports for a product from the host country will be gone. We will have to respect what's called "national treatment" - treatment no less favourable than that available to nationals within investing states. We're dealing with creating a charter of rights for the richest corporations in the world, with no respect to national boundaries, no respect whatsoever to any national border.

They have measures contained in it called "rollback clauses," which are designed to ensure that any pieces of legislation or regulation measures of member countries that did not conform with MAI would be reduced and/or eliminated. They have standstill provisions which would forbid any future government in Ottawa or the province to take public ownership over a sector of the economy that had been previously privatized.

What is the role of government? The role of government is never to interfere, according to these transnational companies, but to interfere only to protect their investments. The role of government is to ensure protection of foreign corporations and to provide a safe haven for profitable transnational corporations. That is the extent of the role of government.

1600

This agreement is the most deleterious agreement we will ever have to deal with and fight. I urge the people who are watching today's program on this very issue to call us. We will send them all the information they need to see how municipalities and provinces are going to be adversely affected because they will lose their social policy instruments; they will be taken away by this agreement. Write us to tell us how we can join forces to fight this multilateral agreement on investment, which will not go away. The Liberals at the federal level are not going to let this go away. It is inexorably driven by the Liberals and inexorably driven by the multinational companies that want this trade agreement to protect their investments. I urge everybody watching to support us as we fight it in the next six months.

ROYAL ASSENT SANCTION ROYALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to a certain bill.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): The following is the title of the bill to which Her Honour did assent:

Bill 146, An Act to protect Farming and Food Production / Projet de loi 146, Loi protégeant l'agriculture et la production alimentaire.

MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT (continued)

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's certainly a pleasure for me to be able to respond to this resolution. I have some empathy for the member for Fort York and his concerns with the federal Liberals having campaigned five or six years ago against free trade and then coming in and doing a flip-flop, which is consistent, being Liberals. I can understand his real concerns, especially with the helicopter deal. They stopped that and now they're out trying to buy helicopters, and on it goes with Liberal positioning. It's not surprising and I can understand why you would be concerned.

Canada was built on the principles of law, order and good government. This has resulted in a business culture here in Canada in which people, investors and companies expect to be treated fairly and expect that agreements will be honoured. That has been traditional here in our country. We have a tendency to judge the need for laws and sanctions based on how such business matters are handled here in Canada. This has led to many local groups questioning the need for the multilateral agreement on investment.

Some very legitimate concerns have been expressed, and these relate to the concerns about the multilateral agreement on investment's impact on our ability to enforce labour and environmental standards and on the government's ability to carry out regulatory or legislative action that is in the Canadian public's best interests. These concerns must be addressed before an agreement can be reached. We must ensure that we can continue to introduce the regulatory changes, including the protection of the environment, without being challenged by our investors. We must also ensure that the multilateral agreement on investment does not mean differential treatment of foreign and domestic investors. Ontarians will not tolerate an agreement that grants better treatment to outside interests than to Canadians.

We must recognize there are significant problems that the MAI seeks to overcome. Other governments do not always observe the same rules of fairness for investors that we expect here in Canada. Recent experiences in Quebec make that point.

A Canadian hotel management company based in Halifax was forced to seek a court order from the Quebec judiciary to seize a Russian Aeroflot airliner. The Canadian company had been partners with Aeroflot in a hotel venture in Moscow which resulted in an investment dispute. Things got ugly and the two parties went to court. Although the Canadian company was awarded legal damages of some $8 million, it has never been able to collect that $8 million. Recently the day-long detention of the Aeroflot jetliner in Quebec won a grudging promise from the Russian partners that they would indeed pay the $8 million by week's end.

While the Canadian company's tactics seem to have worked in this particular instance, it's a dangerous way of enforcing settlements. This could have led to a very nasty international incident. This little caper illustrates the risks Canadian investors face overseas and the risks we face in not having an agreement in place. While there are great opportunities to make money outside of Canada, foreign investment partners have a habit of muscling out international partners just when a joint venture starts showing a profit. There are lots of examples where this has happened. Many Canadians have war stories on out-of-country investment deals gone wrong, partnerships soured and property seized by foreign governments.

The MAI would put in place clear rules to govern international investment. That's a good thing, and one of the strongest arguments in its favour. We cannot hide from this issue. Trade and investment are indeed the key engines of economic growth. Outward Canadian investment makes a vital contribution to our economic prosperity. In 1997, direct Canadian investment abroad totalled $194 billion, a threefold increase since 1986.

An example I'm aware of is the establishment of Welcome to Canada, a retail store in Moscow specializing in Canadian goods and fashions. In this instance, not only the goods featured in the store but all the fixtures and design principles were exported from Canada. That's an example of a success story.

Conversely, foreign direct investment in Canada has also doubled since 1986. It reached $188 billion in 1997. This investment contributed significantly to job creation and greater prosperity. Foreign firms operating in Canada employ 10% of our workforce. As well, 10% of all new direct annual investment in Canada is made by foreign-owned firms that are operating here. Of course, the policies of this government have made Ontario much more attractive to that investment by reducing taxes, red tape and bureaucracy.

While investment is a two-way street, we must ensure that any MAI serves Canada's interest and supports Canadian values. We must have ironclad reservations and guarantees that would preserve Canada's freedom of action at both the federal and provincial levels with respect to key areas such as health care, social programs and education. We also need to ensure that environmental laws are not jeopardized in any way and that we have the continued ability to maintain current measures relating to such diverse activities as transportation, financial services, communications, energy, the fisheries, the auto industry and land and real estate.

We must also ensure that government policy prerogatives with respect to investment review, privatization practices, government financing, agriculture, the supply management system and the management of natural resources are protected. These country-specific reservations are critical to ensuring that Canada's and Ontario's interests are addressed within the text of the proposed MAI.

In conclusion, this year marks the 50th anniversary of GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Since then, we have seen an orderly expansion of the rules of fair and open trade with other countries. This has led to uninterrupted growth in exports, a key factor in our economic wellbeing. We have benefited tremendously from the international trading system that has emerged. It has vastly improved access for our goods and services in a truly global market.

Multilateral rules on investment are a natural extension to the rules of trade in goods and services. Getting the right rules for investment will take time and effort. All governments involved must take the time to get it right. No country is committed to any text at this stage. Nothing can be agreed upon until the entire agreement is agreed upon.

Canada must continue to negotiate an agreement that ensures that our objectives for continued economic prosperity are met, while problems with foreign investment practices are addressed and curtailed. Ontario is willing to support the MAI in principle, but issues must be resolved before we can make a firm commitment.

1610

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's a pleasure for me today to rise to speak to this resolution, although I must admit I would much rather have used the valuable time in this Legislature to debate issues such as health care, education or the future of kids in this province.

But we have a resolution before us today in which in the final paragraph, the "Be it therefore resolved," I find one part is somewhat different from the other and is almost a reversal. First it says that we "immediately demand a halt to the current MAI negotiations" - very clear, those words - but then it goes on to say, "and call on the government to refuse to be part of any agreement...."

If you're going to halt negotiations on one hand, how can you then go on and call on the government to be part of an agreement? I find that a little bit difficult to understand, but in any event, I feel personally that we should be at the negotiating table, whatever it is. Whether it be the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, whether it be the World Trade Organization, or wherever it's at, I think we should be at that table. I don't think that taking your football and going home is any way to participate in the game.

I want to point out that the federal minister has said he would refuse to sign any deal that would limit the Canadian government's powers to regulate health, social services, aboriginal affairs and education. He also insists that Canadian cultural industries not be touched by the deal. He said, "I don't think the protection of some very fundamental values is being strident."

I want to quote too one of the leading spokespersons in this debate about the MAI, Maude Barlow:

"`I have to say that Canada did hold firmer than I thought they would,' said Maude Barlow, chairwoman of the Council of Canadians. `What the minister clearly said was that he was annoyed with the OECD' for not communicating better with the people whom the deal will affect.

"`I think Canada took one of the strongest stands,' Ms Barlow said."

I point out that when it comes to world investment, there is some $180 billion a year invested in Canada by foreign countries and, in turn, about $170 billion a year invested by Canadians in foreign countries. Many of us will understand this a little better if we go to our mutual funds where up to 20% of your mutual funds can be foreign investments.

In the limited time I have today, I want to point out how I believe that Canada, through these negotiations, has taken a stand that represents Canadians. I think we're doing exactly what this resolution would call for, except that we're not walking away from the table being isolationists and not being part of any kind of world trade. You can't solve these kinds of problems if you aren't at the table.

I have here the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and First Report of the Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment, an 80-page report that indicates to me very clearly that the federal government, in being at the table and in negotiating this MAI, is keeping the interests of Canadians at heart in some of the areas that have been mentioned in this debate today. Because time is limited, I will keep my remarks relatively brief and read only from the list of recommendations. As part of this report, there are some 17 recommendations.

The first recommendation is:

"Recognizing the importance of better multilateral rules for the security of Canadian inward and outward investment, Canada should continue to participate actively in the MAI negotiations with its OECD partners. Canada should become a contracting partner to the MAI subject to a final text which fully protects Canadian culture, the environment, labour standards, health, education and social services at the federal and subnational levels."

So there we have it. The very first recommendation says that we will recognize the interests Canada has in all of these areas.

Recommendation number 2:

"The government should continue to increase its efforts to inform Canadians of the merits of negotiating a MAI, while addressing the concerns brought forward by this committee's public hearings."

If these were even considered to be ranked in order, and it doesn't indicate that they are, the second recommendation is that these concerns are being aired at public hearings.

I skip down to recommendation number 5:

"In future negotiations regarding matters of as widespread importance as the MAI, the government should undertake an open and transparent process so that public disclosure and consultations can be carried out in a timely manner, to the extent that is strategically possible."

I would think there are even some agreements that have been negotiated by governments past that may have initially not been totally before the public because of a strategy that was involved, but certainly Minister Marchi has asked very early in his tenure as the trade minister to have these brought forward.

I quote further from this 80-page report. Recommendation number 10, and this issue of expropriation was mentioned by one of the government speakers:

"The key issue of what constitutes an expropriation or a measure having the equivalent effect to expropriation..., or a measure that impairs investment...should be narrowly defined to accord with Canadian and NAFTA practice."

Again, that addresses one of the very issues that's been brought up by several speakers today.

I quote from recommendation number 12:

"Canada should insist on strong references to ILO core labour standards in the text of the agreement - including supporting alternative 2 on page 50 of the English MAI draft text - which will ensure their protection at a level at least as high as that obtained in the NAFTA. Canada should also require the incorporation of the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises into the text of agreements."

So labour has been addressed in this as well.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Just because the committee recommended it doesn't mean that Canada has done it.

Mr Crozier: I'm sorry to inform you, because you should have known, Mr Marchi has said he has accepted these recommendations.

Recommendation number 13:

"The concerns of Canadians regarding the maintenance and introduction of effective environmental standards must be addressed through the use of strong and unambiguous language in the text of the agreement - as in alternative 2 on page 50 of the MAI draft text. Nothing in the MAI, apart from the national treatment of non-discrimination provisions, should infringe on the Canadian governments' capacity at all levels to introduce new measures to protect the environment and promote sustainable development."

Recommendation number 14:

"Canada must achieve an adequate and effective cultural exemption in order to sign this agreement. Therefore, Canada should remain part of the coalition of countries supporting the principle of the French approach to exempting culture from the agreement...."

That's France being "the French approach." In fact, France and Canada have been leaders in bringing up these issues that I'm pointing out to you today.

1620

It goes on to say: "...incorporating a broad self-judging exception within the text of the MAI. Canada should aggressively pursue alliances with other OECD member countries in support of this position," and this is with regard to a cultural exemption.

Recommendation number 16:

"In consultation with subnational levels of government" - and I take it that's the international trade name for, in our case, provinces; there may be other subnational levels of government in other countries not necessarily called by that particular word - "Canada must achieve an unbound reservation for health, education and social services."

Recommendation number 17:

"In order to discipline unilateral extraterritorial measures such as the Helms-Burton Act, Canada in cooperation with the European Union and other like-minded countries should continue to insist upon the inclusion in the MAI of the Canadian proposal or a measure of equivalent effect."

In other words, we don't like the Helms-Burton Act that the United States has passed unilaterally and therefore they should not, nor should any other country, be able to do what Helms-Burton has tried to do to Canada through a unilateral act.

In going over these recommendations - and that's only part of them - any of us in this Legislature should know that if you're going to negotiate fairly and honestly, you have to put it all on the table. You may not like what's on the table. That's the whole idea behind negotiation. Unlike the social contract, where you had no choice - I mean, it took away collective bargaining rights - true negotiation is putting it on the table, talking about it with those you disagree with, and in the end, if you don't agree with the final text, then is the time to decide not to do it. The time to decide not to negotiate, to me, is not when you're partway through the negotiation, but you stay to the end and get on the table what you want. Thank God this is one process where there is the opportunity to do that. Some overriding organization didn't just come along and say, "Sorry, we've already had an agreement on this and we're going to take away your rights."

We have the right to negotiate internationally. I think Canada is taking that right. Canada has on the table its objections in those areas where those rights of Canadians and in each of the individual provinces can be discussed and protected.

In view of the fact that this now has been set aside for six months - it's not even being discussed for the next six months - as I said at the outset, I would have much preferred to be discussing today the issues of the day that are of so much concern to so many Ontarians; that is health care, education and the protection of kids.

Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to address this resolution.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I appreciate the opportunity to put a few thoughts on the record today about this very important issue, because it is not only a federal issue but a provincial issue and a community issue. Each person who calls himself a Canadian who wants to participate in a positive and creative way in the community in which he lives is going to be affected very directly and meaningfully if we don't take a look at this for what it is.

Paul Valery is one to say, "The best way to make your dreams come true is to wake up." There are a few people across this country today, Maude Barlow and Tony Clark among them, who have been saying for a number of months now that the people of Canada need to wake up to the threat that the MAI is to the Canadian story, to the Canadian dream.

As Canadians, those who were born here and those who chose to come and live in Canada, we had a dream; we have a dream. But at this moment, given the tenor and the tone of the governments we have in place, that dream is in jeopardy.

In many ways it has been usurped and jettisoned for another dream, a dream that is driven by money, that is driven by the idea of a global economy that has no conscience and no morality, a dream that is not in keeping with the best aspirations of the leaders of this country over a long number of years now, who built the railroad; who built the health care system we all enjoy and appreciate today that is under threat if the MAI, the multilateral agreement on trade and investment, goes through; built an education system that is the best anywhere in the world and that we want to see evolve and build on; built a net of social services for people that made sure there was nobody in this country, however rich or poor, however smart or challenged, who fell through the cracks because any at particular time they were not able to get a job or participate actively in the community in which they lived.

We have governments in place in Canada now in almost every jurisdiction that have very significantly bought into this global economy, this vision of a global economy that has, as I said, no conscience and no soul.

We know that in the 1960s and 1970s in this country many people, of different political persuasions, worked very hard collectively to put in place pension plans, health care systems, education systems, that would serve the people of this great country and of this province. We knew when we did that that they would have to be paid for, that they would be costly, but we were willing to pay that price because we knew that if we invested in that way, in the communal good of everybody, at the end of the day we would all be better served and we would have an economy that was stable and that would generate a confidence that would attract other people to come and invest in our jurisdiction.

That dream, that plan, that story, wasn't long down the road when the powers that be, the élites in our country and outside the country, began to look at it with some concern because it wasn't in keeping with the fundamentals of the system that they saw would be more in their interests. So they began to change it. The way they began to change it was to squeeze the money out of it that was needed to make it healthy, to have it evolve, to make it grow.

They planted the seed of scepticism. They planted the seed of envy, of jealousy. Governments began to look at ways to get out of this system we collectively had put ourselves in. We saw that with the Mulroney government in the early 1980s, the way it changed the tax system so that less and less of the costs of these programs that were so very important to all the people who called Canada home were paid for by those who actually had the money, the corporations and the well-off in the country. They put that burden in various and devious ways on the back of the middle-class worker to the point where the middle-class worker began to strain and creak under the pressure, under the weight of all that.

We entered into the North American free trade agreement which they thought would enhance the ability of the élites to take us away from this dream, this vision, that we had of our country and more towards a more competitive market-driven vision of where we might go, which they felt in fact was in our best interests.

It was interesting. We had a Liberal government that when in opposition at the federal level saw all this, was very critical and said that, given an opportunity to be government, it would change it, it would make it different, it would go back to where we were when people like Pierre Trudeau, for example, under the influence of Tommy Douglas, were building programs and having a system of very generous and compassionate systems in place to actually help people.

1630

We elected a Liberal government at the federal level and they weren't long there when they began to backtrack. I remember Jean Chrétien going to Washington soon after he was elected. He went down and said he was going to walk out of the American free trade agreement. He was going to walk away, as he said he would do in the campaign to be elected in that year. Did he do that? No, he didn't, because he was convinced, he was persuaded by the powers that be in Washington, who are influenced by other powers in other places, that in fact this is where we should be going. So the Liberal government that we thought was going to be different bought into the deficit-cutting and dollar-focused agenda that places people second, third, fourth or fifth down the road.

This multilateral agreement on investment that we're looking at now, that Maude Barlow and Tony Clark and so many others have raised a red flag about, would cast in stone all those movements by those governments so that we could never again participate collectively in the development of the dream that we saw evolve in this country in the 1960s and the 1970s.

Let's take it a little closer to home for a minute, the vision of the Mike Harris Tories in Ontario, and ask ourselves what it is that they are doing which feels so much like what Brian Mulroney did in the early 1980s at the federal level, and that I suspect, given a chance to be government, the provincial Liberals will in fact endorse. Because up to now what we hear as their leader goes out to speak to the people of Ontario about what they would do, given a chance to govern in Ontario, is that they would take the surpluses generated by the program that the provincial Tories have put in place and then reinvest them in the programs that we all know are so important to the communities and people of Ontario. In other words, they will buy into the program that Mike Harris has imposed on Ontario.

Let's just look for a minute at what that program is and what it's about. We must also understand that:

"Mike Harris is a mere spear carrier in a globalized world of pecuniary values, a loyal and unreflective soldier doing the bidding of transnational capital. Similarly, the federal Liberals appear to have jettisoned their defence of the average citizen in their rabid embrace of the market economy. Both have succumbed to the overriding idea: We are no longer a culture but part of a broader economy. So to counter this surrender the average citizen must be aware of exactly what is happening and do what they can to be critical thinkers, because the great fight is upon us.

"Once again (the first was the Industrial Revolution) a deadly serious attempt is being made to cram the sacramental nature of human life, the holiness of humanity, the God-given dignity of our vulnerable children and the earth itself into the law of the market. World capitalist development, accelerated by computer-based technology in the midst of a new international production system, has resulted in too many workers chasing too few jobs.

"The result we see: in the free market countries the gap between the rich and the poor becoming greater; a depression of wages for working people which results in longer hours to pay the bills and stay even, which results in less time to reflect and analyse this disturbing trend; an assault on the integrity and importance of the family, scattered and driven apart by these market forces, working split shifts, strange hours and never breaking bread together.

"This increased mobility, epidemic in today's volatile labour market, weakens the relationship with the people who socialized us.

"With the powerful, persuasive tools of mass marketing, it overwhelms and empties sacred symbols of their power and encourages the young to adopt a prefabricated identity where material goods become visible symbols of their inner worth. In general, we see a loosening of the bonds of the human community, a decrease in the solidarity we owe each other, a heightening of individualism and defensive vulnerability where each feels he must solely defend his own territory in Darwinist fashion. The Africans have a saying which describes this new reality: `In times of drought, the animals around the watering hole begin to look at each other'" differently.

"When the only reality that is recognized as ultimate is market forces, then the human person, the worker creating the wealth becomes merely a commodity, a disposable unit of production. If, as the market states, societies are only `statistical aggregations of individuals engaged in voluntary exchange,' if as Margaret Thatcher insisted there are only individuals, isolated units in love with `the unrestrained freedom to maximize their own advantage,' if there is only a Darwinian jungle of self-interested individuals disconnected from any moral organic" truth, "if the only hand we acknowledge is the unseen hidden hand of the market which declares right now that over 1.5 million Canadians are expendable rather than the hand of community, solidarity and compassion, then we must agree with the Czech playwright and former president Vaclav Havel who declared, `The narrative is broken.'"

These are a few thoughts that were shared with us last week in Sault Ste Marie by my good friend Ted Schmidt, who has written in Catholic New Times on many occasions about the marketplace and what it's doing to people and to communities.

I say to you this afternoon that there are millions of stories across this land and across this province that speak of this reality, and none more real than those who are told about the small communities in Ontario and in particular northern Ontario. I would suggest that people who want to know more about the impact of this global economy on small communities in northern Ontario might want to take a look at High Grader Magazine, which is put out by a couple in Cobalt to tell those stories.

It's my fear this afternoon that if this multilateral agreement on trade is allowed to go forward, those stories will die, and with them the communities and the people who inhabit them.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon, this important debate on the proposed multilateral agreement on investment.

The federal government of course, as we know, has lead responsibility on this issue and is responsible for negotiating it with the member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development or, as we call it, the OECD. However, the Ontario government insists on being consulted on this matter and on having an organized and effective way of making our own voice heard.

I listened to my esteemed colleague and friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and parliamentary assistant to the Premier as she delved into the details of the proposed MAI, but I want to reiterate that although the Ontario government would be supportive of an investment treaty in principle, we will not commit to formally supporting the agreement unless certain basic conditions are met.

An agreement must provide meaningful commercial benefits for Canadians who make investments in other countries. We must ensure that the investor-state dispute settlement provisions provide an adequate means of redress for investors. We also insist on giving the Ontario government the latitude it needs to respond to our own regulatory needs. Ontario must retain its ability to enforce existing environmental standards and indeed to strengthen them over time without being exposed to claims for compensation by affected parties. We don't want to see other countries which sign an investment treaty, whether it be the proposed MAI or some other agreement, able to lower their own environmental standards to attract foreign investment, for we know that environmental problems know no borders.

I want to spend a few minutes speaking about the Ontario economy and what this government is doing to help make it even stronger. Now that I've set out the Ontario government's position with regard to the MAI, I wish to move into a broader subject: the importance of international trade to Ontario's economy.

Make no mistake about it, this government places a very high priority on Ontario's international trading arrangements. I want to take a few minutes to describe just how vital international trade is to Ontario's economy. Our economic growth, our job creation and our future economic prosperity all depend on how successfully Ontario companies, their management and their workforce working in concert, take advantage of international trade and investment opportunities.

1640

The Ontario government is committed to helping companies in this province discover and develop new export opportunities. We have every reason to do this. This province has one of the world's most open economies. Last year, the value of foreign exports of goods and services represented the equivalent of 40% of the value of all of Ontario's economic activity. As an exporting jurisdiction, Ontario has had some very good results over the years. But in the era of tight international competition we live in today, "very good" won't be good enough in the future. We simply will have to be better than our economic competitors over time.

In 1997 almost 90% of our exports went to the United States, and they were highly concentrated in a very few sectors, such as the automotive industry. We need to be looking for ways to expand the range of goods and services we sell internationally and to diversify the markets we sell to. Let me give you an example.

Ontario's exports account for about 2% of all the global exports in the world. But if you exclude the United States from this factor, we account for only one quarter of one percent of the global export markets. Of course, it's in our best interests to maintain and even build up our very strong foothold in the American market, but we also have a profound need to diversify our markets around the world.

That's one of the reasons why last December the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism announced the creation of a new export marketing task force to help improve Ontario's international trade potential. Reporting to the minister, the task force was comprised of 27 senior executives from leading Ontario companies, large and small. It was co-chaired by David Winfield, senior vice-president of government relations for Northern Telecom, and Len Crispino, president of the Ontario International Trade Corp. As well, the OITC chair, my friend the member for Eglinton, led a number of subcommittees and held consultations with the public and private sector representatives throughout the work of this task force.

The task force held its inaugural meeting in January and wrapped up its proceedings in the first week of April. Clearly, it had an aggressive and demanding agenda. The task force's mission was to determine how to increase Ontario's share of the global export market; enhance the awareness of Ontario as a source of high-quality, internationally competitive goods and services; and build, foster and maintain a trading culture in Ontario. The task force completed its report, and that is now being reviewed by the Minister of Economic Development. We expect that the report will help to provide the basis for a new export development strategy, which the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism will submit to cabinet and the government caucus in due time.

The Ontario government is entirely committed to helping to make this province the best place in the world to live, to work and to raise a family - and to do business. The government's pro-growth agenda is clearly reaping rewards. Ontario's economy hasn't looked this strong in many years. Investment is up; exports are up; housing starts are up; inflation is below 2%; and consumer and business confidence are way up.

Ontario's GDP growth is the highest in Canada, and leads all the G-7 countries. In 1997, the Ontario economy registered its strongest growth of the decade, with real GDP rising some 4.8%. Private sector forecasters expect Ontario's GDP growth rate to continue to outpace the growth projected for any of the G-7 countries.

Ontario's job market is booming. Since January 1997, employment in Ontario has risen by 263,000 jobs. Since our government took office in mid-1995, 350,000 net new jobs have been created in Ontario. That's half of all the new jobs created in Canada in the same time period.

In March, Ontario's unemployment rate fell to 7.4%, the lowest in almost a decade. Ontario is once again becoming the province of hope and opportunity, the driver of Canada's economy. As we near the 21st century, Ontario is poised to succeed as business hubs, magnets for investment, an exporting economy and first-rate tourism destinations.

Mr Patten: I am very pleased today to spend some time sharing some thoughts and my beliefs concerning the multilateral agreement on investment, euphemistically called the MAI.

I would first like to address the resolution this afternoon. I find it somewhat confusing, but I will give you what I believe to be the spirit of it. If that's acceptable, then I would be in support of the resolution.

The resolution calls for an immediate halt on current negotiations. Well, in fact there is at the moment a halt on negotiations. I think what the meat of the resolution attempts to address is really that the government of Canada and presumably the government of Ontario would refuse to be part of an agreement that would enshrine the rights of corporate investors over the rights of the people of Canada. I interpret that to be the spirit of the resolution, and on that basis I am in support of the resolution.

I believe we're all concerned. Throughout Canada all levels of government should be concerned, absolutely concerned. I know many of my colleagues in the federal Parliament are concerned about this as well. I have had phone calls at my riding office indicating concern about it.

I would like to proceed on the basis of the sovereignty of Canada versus the sovereignty of multinational enterprises or multinational corporations, whatever the term is. I will stand firm, and I believe our Canadian government will stand firm, to fight any attempt to propose any such arrangement that would want Canada to be part of this.

A little earlier my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt, as did a number of members in the House this afternoon, pointed out how important the export market is for Canada. But he pointed out something that I believe is an important aspect: our high dependence upon exports to one country. As great as that is and as happy as we are to have people buying our products, anyone in business will know, or perhaps more specifically if they're a private consultant, and they only have one very large one that represents 80% of their work and one other that represents 20%, more than likely that consultant is going to attempt to diversify the work or the services they do. I believe it's in Canada's interest - it certainly is in Ontario's interest - to look at how we can diversify our exports.

As has been pointed out by members, our exports have been up in Ontario. They are up in Canada. That is a good sign. But the importance of diversification is also a good sign. The opportunities for diversification of course are throughout the world: in Europe, the Pacific Rim and elsewhere.

I would also suggest that in terms of foreign investment in Canada - and we're talking about a two-way street here - we have some kind of final agreement that will enable investments and we have more and more investments from Canada to other countries taking place, from which Canadians and Ontarians benefit.

I'm advised that as a rule of thumb, $1 billion of investment is worth about 45,000 jobs. When I look at Canada today, let alone Ontario, we have a high level of unemployment, certainly unacceptable; other provinces have far higher unemployment. This is unacceptable. We know that foreign investment here is an important element of job creation.

1650

It was mentioned by my colleague from Essex South that one of my constituents - I've known Maude Barlow on a personal basis for many years, a person who is obviously a fighter and a person who will stand up for her principles as the chairwoman of the Council of Canadians. I'd just like to reiterate, though, that in the last period of time, prior to the halt of negotiations just recently, Maude Barlow said, "I have to say that Canada did hold firmer than I thought they would."

Some of you know she will take on the Canadian government and berate it, day in and day out, against what she believes might happen. But so far, at this particular stage, she's saying:

"`What Marchi clearly said was that he was annoyed with the OECD' for not communicating better with the people whom the deal will affect.

"`I think Canada took one of the strongest stands,' Ms Barlow said."

I applaud my constituent and my friend Maude Barlow for standing up for Canadians, as I think everyone would want her to do.

Are we talking about one extreme or the other? Are we saying no, we don't want any foreign investment? I don't hear anyone saying that. Are we saying we only want foreign investment, at all costs? Perhaps there are some who would say that, but certainly I wouldn't and I don't think any members of any party here would say that. We're really talking about a balance.

We also are well enough aware that Canada, as a relatively small economy, especially next to the giant in the States and many other giants around the world economically - we have a fairly good and strong economy and a fair-sized economy for the size of our population, but relatively we are a small economy, and we have a very vast piece of property. Our geography in Canada is vast, the second-largest country in the world, with a relatively small population given the size of our country.

It's extremely important how we manage our cultural affairs, how we support cultural activity and the cultural industries that are Canadian, especially living so close to the United States, where they have a completely different view of culture because they're so big. It's a major industry for them around the world, so they don't worry about the concerns about culture. They worry about not having other countries accept their industries. They are often very insensitive, in my opinion, to the fact that they completely dominate smaller countries, at least with smaller populations. They are unaware of it and what damage that may do to the strength and the diversity of cultures around the world, really.

I would like to take a few minutes and refer to a document that my colleague from Essex South referred to, but I want to put it in a context: the First Report of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment. It's a fair-sized document. Depending on how fast you can read, you could probably get through it in an hour or an hour and a half or so.

How did this document come about? The first thing that's important is that the document came about by a letter from the Minister for International Trade, the Honourable Sergio Marchi, to the chair of a standing committee, requesting parliamentary input into negotiations leading to any proposed multilateral agreement on investment. The members of the House know full well that there are customs in the ways things take place. This is unusual. It's unusual for a minister, first of all, to submit something to a standing committee before work is done on things. But no, the minister asked and said, "Listen, we want this to go before the members of the House, through this committee, and we would like to have hearings and invite people who have a concern, who have an interest in this."

I identify this because I know it's part of the resolution. It suggests that negotiations by the federal government took place for years in secrecy, and I would like to suggest that indeed there are many ways in which this information is out there. Members of the House will know, when you have a special interest, how disappointed you often become when you find that nobody else seems to care, when there is something that, individually, we believe is really important and no journalists are writing about it, there's nothing on television, nobody's talking about it on the talk shows, or anything of that nature. Then all of a sudden, somebody finds that word that resonates. People gravitate to it and reports are written, articles are written about it. I think this is somewhat similar.

I know for a fact that the federal government approached the Globe and Mail and said, "We'd like to tell you about these negotiations and discussions we're having with the OECD about some rules and regulations on foreign investment." There was nothing that came by way of the Globe and Mail, I understand, at that particular time. Of course, now there is; there's greater interest. But I'm led to believe that the judgement was, "Who cares about this really?" and "Who has a great interest?" So who knows, there may be more articles being written as this issue is raised.

My colleague from Essex South pointed out a few examples of what this committee did. They had hearings, they had numerous submissions and they wrote the final report. Some of the people that went before them were from one end of the spectrum, from the Fraser Institute to the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, to Laval University, to the Sierra Club, to Concordia University, the University of Toronto, Citizens Concerned about Free Trade, individuals, Citizens for Public Justice, etc, just to give you a flavour of some of the people that made representations.

I went through this report - it looks to me to have a couple of hundred submissions from individuals over and above the hearing process - and I thought that the proposed resolutions from this committee were quite good. What did they have to say?

As my colleague from Essex South said, they recommended that Canada, on the cultural issue, adopt the position of the French government, which has grave concerns about the implications to culture. They went on to 17 different resolutions in the report, and in each of the concerns they addressed that were indicated through their hearings, the wording of the results Canada's negotiating team should achieve regarding the protection of core labour standards, the environment, public services, culture and the policies of provincial and municipal governments has to be taken into account as part of the end result. A strongly worded final recommendation is made to discipline the undertaking of extraterritorial measures such as the Helms-Burton Act. That's extraterritorial, the Helms-Burton Act, which we know full well in this particular country.

What happened with that recommendation? There was a response from the government by way of the Minister of International Trade. I would like to read a short passage on that in a moment, because I think it lays out for the people of Canada, the people of Ontario and this Legislature a fairly unequivocal statement, the government's commitment to continued extensive information that will be provided to members of Parliament, the opposition critics, the provinces and any one else who should be listed, and they go on to identify a Web site. I won't go into providing it at the moment because it will take too long. It's a commitment that the people of Canada participate in this process; also the information and the ongoing information that has been continual with all the provinces in this particular process.

1700

I would like to quote the Honourable Sergio Marchi's statement in response to this report. He says:

"The government believes that Canada cannot afford to hide from the global economy and the rest of the world," - I think we would probably agree with that - "but must work to try to shape the future to our advantage. We are quite prepared to take the time to get it done right. If our requirements are not met, we will not sign any MAI and we will still continue to attract investment to Canada. As I have said before, the government will only accept the right deal at the right time. For this government, Canada's interests and values must always be - and always will be - paramount."

Earlier in the letter, he identifies the major concerns that seem to be the worry of a lot of people, and that will take place.

I suppose our job, certainly in opposition and the responsibility of any member, is to make sure that, whatever happens, our government, the Ontario government, participates fully, shares its views, as the Canadian government is doing. I must also reiterate for the benefit of my colleagues that the Canadian government itself has put on the table 50 concerns, all of which identify the issues that have been raised so far today in this House.

If my interpretation of the resolution is indeed the intended spirit as proposed, then I for one will certainly be standing in my place to support the resolution and assure you that in any way possible that I can help my colleagues to appreciate the ongoing concerns of constituents and the people of Ontario, I shall be proud and happy to do so, and I know that I would receive a very welcome reception.

Mr Wildman: I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate on a matter which I think is overarching and is of importance to all of us who are interested not only in international trade and those kinds of arrangements but in our own social and economic patterns here in this province. All of us who are in favour of the protection of social services, education and health care must be interested in the multilateral agreement on investment which is being proposed at the international level.

Some members have participated in the debate, saying they are in favour of international trade. Well, all of us, obviously, in living in a country like Canada, are interested in international trade. It is a very important part of our economy. Nobody is suggesting that we should somehow try to end our role as a trading nation. This would be ridiculous in a place like Canada. But we are saying that for investment in this country, whether it's the federal government or the provincial governments, this country must be able to set the rules for how corporations can act when they invest in this jurisdiction. That's what we're talking about.

Some have said, "We must be at the table," and have justified the role of Mr Marchi in the fact that he is just trying to defend Canadian interests at the table. I hope he is trying to do that, but I want to point out that Canada isn't just at the table; Canada is leading in this process. The Honourable Donald Johnston is the chair of the OECD. The OECD countries were lobbied by the Prime Minister of Canada to get him there.

We also see the role of the Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues in the expansion of the North American free trade agreement now to try to include all of the Americas. This is a government that has flip-flopped in its position with regard to international trade matters and is now leading the parade for the relaxation of any barriers or what are perceived to be barriers to international trade.

It has been suggested that the resolution proposes an immediate halt to negotiations, and that has happened and therefore we should be happy, but the fact is that we have an interim six-month moratorium on negotiations. The negotiations have not been halted.

The rest of the resolution not only calls for a halt to the negotiations but frankly suggests that we should withdraw from the field. For those reasons, I support the resolution.

I regret the fact that Canada is one of the leading countries in the international community currently finalizing the negotiations, because that's what's being proposed. This moratorium has been described as a pit stop on the way to an agreement; it's not an end to the negotiations.

The reason I'm so concerned is that I believe this to be an unprecedented threat to Canada's democratic system and sovereignty as an independent nation. It's ironic that we have members of the American Congress now raising concerns about the protection of American sovereignty and suggesting that this agreement should not proceed because they do not want to find themselves, as Americans, in a situation where they cannot set the rules for how business will be conducted in their own jurisdiction.

The MAI, if it is signed, will make it very difficult for governments to have room to make laws and regulations to protect Canadian workers, the Canadian economy, the environment in this country, Canadian culture, and indeed to protect Canadian independence. Frankly, I believe they will be all but eliminated.

Under the MAI proposal, large multinational corporations could take court action against any government that took any action perceived by corporations to limit investments by foreigners in this country. Environmental standards, occupational health and safety regulations, minimum wage levels and the health and education systems in Canada and in Ontario would become subject to legal action by foreign investors. Even municipal official plans and bylaws could be subject to action by foreign corporations if they believed these provisions might adversely affect their investment opportunities. Even municipal bylaws and planning would be affected.

I believe the MAI is an unprecedented attack on the rights of a democratically elected federal, provincial or municipal government to act on behalf of its citizens and interests. That's why I believe the MAI must be stopped, because I'm afraid that Canadian governments might well just hand over the keys to our country to international corporations and banking institutions. We cannot allow the sovereignty to make rules and regulations in our country to be eliminated or to be even limited by agreements that protect banking and international corporations' activities against the interests of the individual host country.

I believe that the decision to put the negotiations on hold for six months does not mean, unfortunately, that the MAI is dead. Frankly, I believe that all Canadians and certainly all Ontarians, and all members of this assembly, must join in pressing the federal government to withdraw from these negotiations and to ensure that we protect our sovereignty and independence as a national state so that we can set our own regulations and enter into whatever bilateral or multilateral agreements we choose and not be bound by an agreement that sets what we can or cannot do for the next 20 years.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I'm pleased to enter into the debate today. I think there are a couple of issues that we need to hear all sides on.

I'd first like to say that we're very lucky today to have the John P. Robarts Research Institute in the building explaining what they do in southwestern Ontario and throughout the world, if you will, with research for health care and education. So I'd like to comment on that. That brings me into the whole area of where we're going with health, where we're going with our investments, what we're doing in Ontario, Canada and the world.

As everyone knows, the Robarts institute is recognized around the world for the things and the insight it gives us into health and how it helps us develop. What I can't help but stopping and saying today is that Ontario and, after that, Canada are not islands. We can't look at Ontario and say that how we were 50 years ago or 100 years ago is how we need to be today, tomorrow and the next day.

We're in a growing economy that nobody ever thought we were going to be into. My parents, who are 80 years old now, looked at where we would be in 1999 and they saw very different things from what actually happens today. We have to say that Canada, or Ontario, is not an island. We have to be trading. We have to be exporting. We have to be looking to attract investment and to invest in other places in the world so that we stay on the leading edge.

1710

The member for Algoma talks about investment; he talks about things like the banks; he talks about big organizations, that we have some concerns about how they're spending their profits and what they're doing in their economy. What he fails to recognize, and what I think we all need to recognize, is that we probably all invest in some way in the global economy. As small as my husband and I are - we have worked all our lives and had very few dollars - some of our dollars are invested in the international world, if you will, because we have RRSPs. If you look at the teachers' pension plan for all the teachers of the province, they have one of the largest investments, I think we all recognize, and some of those, about 20% in most cases, are invested in the world out there.

We have to recognize that when we're talking about a multilateral agreement on investment, we're not talking about just the banks; we're talking about the investments that you and I are making through our mutual funds, our RRSPs, that we're making in companies we believe are going to grow and prosper. My children have investments, a few dollars their grandparents gave them, in Microsoft, and with that investment in Microsoft, they're making investments in the United States. They're very lucky kids, I admit that - their grandparents are good to them - but on the other side, that is an investment in the future and in the global economy, so we can't be looking at this and saying, "Hey, these are the big bad banks," or "These are the big bad companies across the world." These are investments that you and I and other people are making in the future of Ontario.

No one wants a carte blanche agreement. I think everybody has said here today that what we need to have is a negotiated agreement that's good for Canadians, good for Ontarians. We want to make sure there is commercial benefit for Canadian businesses so they can make their investments in other countries. We want to make sure, though, when we're looking at those investments and when we're considering what we're doing in our investment world, that we're thinking about the environment. Environmental standards are very important. We all recognize that they need to be strengthened over time, and we need to be careful about the compensation claims, all those kinds of things. We have to be very cognizant that we don't see environmental standards weakened over time.

I spoke last week to the fishing ministry at the federal level, talking about our Great Lakes, and we all recognize that in the past we have negotiated agreements that may have environmental standards, but those environmental standards have to be strengthened, and so we're working towards that at both the federal and provincial levels. No one wants to see those standards become less. We want to see a better Ontario for our children.

This government supports international trade agreements. We understand how vital international trade is to the Ontario economy. The member for Algoma says, "Yes, I understand that exporting is important, I understand trade is." We all understand that it has to be, but if we're not at the table to be able to negotiate that - unfortunately, Ontario isn't at the table; it's the federal government that's at the table - we can't do right for the people of Ontario and Canada, because we have to be there to negotiate.

Our economic growth, job creation and future prosperity depend on international trade and investment opportunities. We want to help our industries to export and develop new opportunities outside this province and outside this country. You have to remember that some of the biggest barriers our businesses have right now are with other provinces within the country of Canada, and we're all saying that we need to move to reduce some of those barriers. Representing a large agricultural area, as I am lucky enough to do, we need very much to have our agricultural product moved outside of the province of Ontario. We need it to be moved into other areas of Canada and throughout the world. What we used to be able to grow on an acre of land was very small compared to what we can grow today, and we need to be able to find new markets, new homes for those products. We need to be able to look at that export market and expand it.

Ontario's exports have increased by 50% over the last three years. In 1997, exports accounted for 44% of Ontario's economic activity. We have to ensure that there is a good climate for export and investment within the province. Exports support job creation, as everyone in this room is aware, especially the members on this side of the House. Part of the Common Sense Revolution was that we would help stimulate the job market so there would be 725,000 people employed within the private sector.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Bill Clinton.

Mrs Johns: You may say, "Thank you, Bill Clinton." I say, "Thank you, Mike Harris," because he thought about creating jobs. He thought about opportunities that were out there. He reduced red tape. He moved forward to make sure there was the opportunity when markets expanded to be able to have jobs being created within this province.

As an exporting jurisdiction, Ontario has performed well, but we all know we're going to have to do better and better and better. I don't think anyone here is saying that we can ever think to go back, but we have to be at the table to make sure this agreement allows us every opportunity to create an environment for us to do better and better.

Someone said earlier today that there is $170 billion in investment that we invest in other areas of the world. There's $180 billion in investment that comes into Canada. We need to have that flow of dollars, both coming in and going out of Canada.

We have a dominant customer. I now work in energy and everybody knows that we talk about a dominant market position right now with Ontario Hydro. In the export business we also have a dominant customer. Some 90% of our exports go to the United States, 3% go to Asia and 1% to Latin America. We have to expand that. We don't want to have one dominant customer. We don't want to be always having to say, "Thank you, Bill Clinton." We don't want to say thank you to any one player, just as in our own businesses and our own investments. I don't buy groceries from one store, I buy them from a couple of stores. I'm sure everybody is saying the same thing: not a dominant customer. We need to have more people we are trading with. We need to diversify.

We see ourselves talking about that not only in investments, as we're talking about here today, but we need to diversify in the products we make and build in this province. We need to diversify so that we're not exporting all our natural resources. We need to diversify in 101 ways so that we create jobs and opportunities for the people of Ontario. As diversification becomes an increasingly important part of the global economy, we need more companies exporting goods to a more global share of the market.

In March, Ontario's auto production rose 14% from a year ago to reach a record monthly level of 247,000 units. Ontario's automotive industry is emerging. Recently Wescast Industries, which is a good company in my riding, announced the creation of a new foundry which by 2000-01 will create 300 new jobs to meet the growing demand of the automobile industry. We need to have investment coming into Canada and investment moving out of Canada that allows us to create those jobs and stimulate the marketplace.

As I said earlier, I represent an agrifood county, if you will. Ontario's agrifood industry has also built a worldwide reputation based on the quality of its agrifood exports. Ontario's agrifood exports increased by $300,000 in 1997 compared with 1996. Between 1988 and 1997, exports have almost tripled in the agrifood industry, and that's very important for my community. We need to keep those investments flowing in and flowing out so that we're able to have the agrifood industry growing. They create jobs in my community, the agrifood industry does, and we need to have that industry growing and prospering.

1720

Areas where Ontario could expand exports in the coming years would include science and technology, telecommunications and health technology, transportation, education and resource management. But we cannot say these are all ours, we won't share these. We have to make sure that as people invest in these areas, they do so in a way that's good for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada.

We, as a province, should be able to position our industries to diversify to meet the demanding needs of other industrial and non-industrial nations. These opportunities should be good for us as well as developing nations.

This government has planned several trade missions since taking office to various sectors around the world to enhance Ontario's profile and to help open up new export markets. The Ontario government is committed to creating a more export-oriented culture in this province. We have a Team Canada trade mission where we ask people who are travelling all the time to help us, to talk about the good things that happen in Ontario and Canada. We have Trade Winds Forum Ontario organized to do business in Latin America. Ontario's lead trade agency, which we heard about earlier, is the OITC, which strives to help Ontario be known in the marketplace. We also have the Canada Ontario Export Forum. We're creating a Web site with information about our economy and the business climate that we have in Ontario to create investment. We have enhanced the ministry publication Challenges so that people are cognizant about what Ontario has to offer.

If people in this place today are thinking that as a result of opening up a multilateral agreement on investment in some way Canada, if it negotiates the proper agreement, will be damaged by it, I say bunk. I say that if we give Canadians and Ontarians the same opportunity as we give other people within the world, we will do very well. We will create jobs and we will protect the things that we believe are important to protect, which include environment, health care, transportation and education to ensure that there are opportunities for our people, because we can compete, we can do well if we let Ontarians and Canadians become competitors head on with other people across the world.

Not only is the government building Ontario's export base through the things I've already mentioned before, but we're strengthening our economy at home to entice investment in Ontario. All of these initiatives are working, and the numbers are the proof that these initiatives are working.

Ontario's economy recorded the strongest growth of the decade, the real GDP rising 4.8%. This rise in output was broad based, with the household, business and export sectors all contributing to the growth.

Part of the reason for that great growth is of course as a result of the policies developed to get rid of red tape, to work forward to allow businesses to come here and for us to invest in other areas.

The private sector is more optimistic that the Ontario economy will still remain strong in 1998. All private sector forecasters expect Ontario to grow faster than the Canadian average in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

The chief economist of Nesbitt Burns, Dr Sherry Cooper, said: "The Ontario economy is booming. The tax cuts are clearly working their way through the system."

The International Monetary Fund has forecast that Canada will lead all industrialized nations in economic growth, with real output rising 3.8% in 1997 and 3.5% in 1998. That's very exciting news for us in a country that's growing, and we see the monetary system thriving. It is very important for us.

From February 1997 to February 1998, the private sector has created 265,000 net new jobs in Ontario, the best 12-month gain ever in Ontario. When you think about that, that's incredible: the best 12-month gain ever in the province of Ontario, 265,000 net new jobs.

In March 1998, Ontario's total employment rose 3,300, following a 35,000-job gain in February. When you think about that, the unemployment rate will continue to decline, falling to 7.4% in March. That's very exciting news, and this is not happening because we're isolationist. It's not happening because we're not diversifying. It's not happening because we're not trying to stimulate and create growth in Ontario and in Canada. We need to continue to do all of those things and, to do that, we have to be at the table, negotiating what is best of Canadians and Ontarians.

The Ontario help wanted index rose sharply, by 2.9%, in March. The help wanted index in Ontario is at its highest level since September 1990. So we know that this province is booming, it's moving forward and it's working.

From June 1995 to March 1998, the number of people depending on social assistance has declined by over a quarter of a million people. That's a drop of 18.9%. In a good economy, your people are working. What we need to do is ensure that there are jobs for these people to go to. I often heard when I first came to this House that there were no jobs for people to go to. As the Ontario help wanted index increases, that shows there are jobs for people to be able to move to. From June 1995 to March 1998, the number of people coming off social assistance increased substantially.

According to Statistics Canada's recent investment intentions survey, Ontario's business plan is to raise plant and equipment spending by 2.5% in 1998. This follows a robust 13.8% in 1997. So people with small businesses, like the ones we might know of, friends or neighbours, are starting to look at starting their own business, investing in plant and equipment so that they too can have the opportunity to run their own business and create jobs. All of those investments are an important part, and whether they come from Canadians, from Ontarians or from outside Ontario and Canada, what that does is, it allows Ontarians to work. It's very important to have those investments.

What we have in Ontario right now is an economy that's booming. We have people who are able to work. We have business building permits which are rising by 63.4% from a year ago, and we all know that business permits and construction are a leading indicator of where the economy is going in the future. We know that as building permits are being taken out, we're going to have a stimulation of jobs again.

To say that we should be away from the table, to say that we should live in isolation and we shouldn't be concerned about these multilateral agreements in investment is not the right approach. We have to be at the table and we have to protect what we believe is important for the environment, what we believe is important for health care, what we believe is important for our social programs.

Mr Bradley: When I first heard about this debate, I thought it was MRI we were talking about, magnetic resonance imager, because we in the Niagara region need a number of magnetic resonance imagers and right now there is a breakthrough health care campaign under the auspices of the St Catharines General Hospital Foundation which is raising money because, as we all know, the government does not contribute a penny to the magnetic resonance imager capital cost, and even the operating cost is far from adequately covered.

1730

I thought when this motion was brought forward, because we're sitting in the Ontario Legislature, a provincial Parliament, that we'd be talking about the MRI, magnetic resonance imager. Certainly we're going to have one in St Catharines. We would like to have one in Welland and one in Niagara Falls. We need a number of these to serve the good people of the Niagara Peninsula. If we are speaking in favour of the MRI, the magnetic resonance imager, I am fine.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: The members opposite are pointing out deficiencies in my tie and my collar, I see.

I tried to figure out why the NDP would be bringing forward this motion in the provincial Parliament. This should be debated very extensively in the federal Parliament, no question about it. That is an important issue. Then I thought, "It fits in with the strategy now," which is that you aim the guns at the federal Liberals and if you use the word "Liberal" enough they'll think that it's the provincial Liberals.

Mr Marchese: More or less.

Mr Bradley: My friend from Fort York confirms that that is the case.

Lest you think I'm picking on the NDP, I asked them first if it was all right if I explained to the folks out there what the strategy was in bringing this resolution forward. They would want to try to have provincial Liberals accept some of the blame for federal Liberals, even though I say nothing about - for instance, when someone mentions Bingogate in BC, I say, "That has nothing to do with the New Democrats in Ontario." NDP Premier Glen Clark said something rather negative about Greenpeace. He said they were the enemies of the people of British Columbia, so there's almost a bounty now in the rural areas of British Columbia, because the NDP Premier of British Columbia said Greenpeace was an enemy of British Columbia. I don't blame that on my friend Howard Hampton. I don't blame that on the New Democrats here, because I know they're not going to blame what other provinces or the federal government do on provincial Liberals. I know that.

When the NDP government closed hospitals in Saskatchewan, I said, "That has nothing to do with the provincial New Democrats here in Ontario." And when they cut taxes in their budgets, I don't say, "That's the same as the Ontario New Democrats."

I think people have to know that when we're in these various jurisdictions, the Ontario New Democrats are entirely different. You cannot hold them responsible for the federal New Democrats or New Democrats in any other province, just as I can't hold the Conservatives here responsible for Brian Mulroney. I have never in this House suggested that they are associated in any way with Brian Mulroney and that former discredited government. I would not say that about this particular group here.

We're going to talk about the resolution, but I wanted to mention the MRI first of all, because of the great need. I also wanted to let the folks out there know what the strategy is, because sometimes they don't follow the House carefully enough to know what the strategy is in each of these cases.

If you word the motion in a tricky manner, you leave people with a couple of choices. For instance, it condemns the federal government. If you vote for it they say you're condemning the federal government, if you vote against it you're in bed with the federal government, so it's a no-win situation that my friends in the New Democratic Party have suggested.

Mr Marchese: So don't vote.

Mr Bradley: The member for Fort York says from the floor, not from his seat, "Well, don't vote." I remember that happening in the House last Thursday morning. I was looking for New Democrats when we talked about tax cuts and they were all gone. They had vanished. They were Casper the ghost or something like that.

I want to say that I'm going to support this motion. I'm going to support the motion because I think that in all of these international agreements, particularly those which affect trade and those that could affect our culture, our environment, our health care and so on, we have to proceed with extreme caution. The member for Sault Ste Marie agrees with me when I say that.

Maude Barlow has been very much involved in this and I want to compliment Maude for doing this: for initiating in the greater public context a debate on this potential agreement. She is doing a good job in that. I want to compliment her. I may not agree with absolutely everything Maude says about things, but she has raised a number of significant issues that I think the public at large want to know about. They want a thorough debate in the federal Parliament, and there should be forums across this country where this is debated, even though this particular item probably best belongs in the federal Parliament.

I had to listen to some of my colleagues. I'm always interested in what my colleagues opposite have to say. The member for Huron went on at great length about the Ontario economy and she recognized, I'm sure, that Bill Clinton is to be thanked. I will personally get a thank you card that she can send to Bill Clinton, because that old US economy is booming. The government members, when you say, "What about British Columbia?" have to remember that the greatest provincial trading partner with the United States is Ontario. In fact, if you were to look at a chart, it would show that the number one trading partner with the United States is Canada. Do you know what the second-largest trading partner is, if it were a separate entity? The province of Ontario.

When that US economy is booming, I'll tell you, our economy is going to boom. When Bill Clinton and his organization over there lower interest rates, stimulate the economy of the United States, it's booming.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Nepean, come to order.

Mr Bradley: Our exports are just heading into the US, so we have lower interest rates now, which we didn't have under the Mulroney government. I'm sorry, I wasn't supposed to mention Brian Mulroney. We did not have low interest rates under the Mulroney government. I will not blame you for that, but right now we have low interest rates and a low dollar. The dollar is at a very competitive rate. I remember being in northern Ontario a number of years back, when I was Minister of the Environment, and I was touring a pulp and paper mill. I asked the vice-president what was the effect to his company of a drop of one cent on the dollar. He said it was a $17-million difference to that company when the dollar dropped one cent. The automotive industry has also done well as a result. So I'm really pleased to see that we have a dollar which allows that kind of competition and that we have low interest rates both in Canada and the United States.

We still have to look at international trade rules. I'm always apprehensive about any agreement which would impede us from promoting our culture. We're under assault from the United States, not in a military way but in an airwaves and print way in terms of the special culture that we have. We have predominantly, at least in Ontario and much of the country, English-speaking media; only in Quebec and certain other parts of the country do we have some French-speaking media and other languages out there. But because we're impacted so much by the United States media, we require certain safeguards to protect our culture and our environment. We do not want to have a circumstance internationally where those who are investing have rules which say we cannot impose upon those investors from those countries the same rules and regulations that we impose upon our own people.

Today we had a report out that the Minister of the Environment didn't want to let the cat out of the bag. There were certain environmentalists who wanted to get some information about the environment, and the ministry said, "You're going to have to pay a few thousand bucks to get this information." Bud Wildman was the minister before; he'll remember this. He and I had to routinely release this report. It was accepted; it was out there for all to see, and that's the way it should be.

I think it's going to be important to have our rules, our regulations, our laws and our policies here in Ontario and here in Canada govern those who are going to invest in our country. We're not trying to chase investment away; we're simply trying to say, "When you invest in Canada, these are the rules to be followed." Our investors, who may invest elsewhere, will be looking I think at the same kinds of rules and should want the same rules.

1740

It is important to have this dialogue with others. I think it's important to have it on as open a basis as possible, with as much information available to the general public as possible, because of that potential impact on so many areas of our lives: environment, health care, education, cultural industries. That is why I think it's important that our national government, which does the negotiating for all of the country, look very carefully and assess all the ramifications of any agreements before ever entering into those agreements. I think you would find a pretty good consensus for that.

We have a pretty unique country and a pretty unique province here. We are somewhat different from the United States. Yes, their economy is booming and we're benefiting from that. I understand that. But also within the United States they have a lot of services which must be procured privately; that is, that those who have sufficient wealth to procure those services are able to do so, while lower-income people do not have that opportunity. That's different from what we've traditionally had and what we've built up in Ontario and in Canada over the years, where many of our public services emanate through the public sector, through the government. We do not have circumstances in this country as they have in the United States - at least, they are the rare exceptions - where people have to bankrupt themselves in order to meet their obligations of a financial nature as they relate to the health care they obtain.

When we have some good things here, like an excellent health care system we've had in years gone by - we're experiencing some considerable problems now but we've had that traditionally - when we have a strong education system, when we have good environmental laws that we've put into place, though heaven knows some of those are being weakened considerably today, when we have this special atmosphere and this special set of rules in our province and our country, we are entitled to want to preserve that and not have somebody from outside this country dictate what they shall be. Just because those people may not be happy with the investment atmosphere in this country because we have tough rules on the environment, or because we have special requirements as they relate to the health care system so that we don't privatize it, or because we have special rules that annoy some people but are necessary to protect and preserve and promote our culture, we need not apologize for that. That should predominate over any considerations that those in other countries may have who want to invest in Canada.

Yes, we welcome investment in all of our provinces throughout the country. We do so, however, under the rules and regulations and policies which are developed, we hope, by a consensus of Canadians, Ontarians, British Columbians, wherever we happen to be in this country.

I always believe that with any international agreement, whether it's this or any other international agreement, governments should proceed with extreme care and caution. In supporting this motion before the House today, I am advocating that kind of care and caution when we deal on an international basis with other countries, but particularly those that are investing in this country. If we adopt this - I think we'll do so unanimously - we will have sent a message to those who are responsible for those negotiations.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I want to make a few remarks, as we wind up, to try to bring us back to the focus we originally wanted when I put forward this opposition day motion.

The resolution says:

"Whereas growing opposition throughout Canada and the world has forced a delay in negotiations, but has not killed the proposed MAI;

"Be it therefore resolved that this House urges the federal government to immediately demand a halt to the current MAI negotiations and call on the government to refuse to be part of any agreement that would enshrine the rights of corporate investors over the rights of the people of Canada and other countries around the world."

We want Canada to withdraw from the MAI, and we want the federal government to refuse to be a part of any agreement that would enshrine the rights of investors over the right to a clean environment, over human rights, over the right to cultural identity, over the rights of working people to work in a safe environment, over the rights of working people to engage in collective bargaining, over the rights of a province like Ontario to have a publicly funded, publicly administered system of medicare.

We want the federal government to say that it is not going to take part in any sort of international agreement that would put the rights of investors above all of these other rights. Let there be no mistake about it, that is what the current MAI is all about. That's exactly what it's all about. It's about giving investors, giving global corporations, more rights than anyone else, and not just more rights somewhere over there or somewhere on the other side of the globe, but more rights right here in Ontario, more rights right here in this province.

I heard one of the Liberal members say earlier that he wanted to debate health care today, that he wanted to debate education. Well, this is exactly what this is about. What global investors want to put in place is an international rule that would say that global corporations have rights across the globe to insist that if a province or a state wants to institute a system of public education because it's in the best interests of those people, because it's in the best interests of their students, because it's in the best interests of the future of their society, if a corporation might potentially lose profit out of that decision, you have to pay the corporation damages, damages for standing up and supporting your own education system, for standing up and insisting on having a health care system that works for the people of your jurisdiction.

This is all about the future of health care, all about the future of education, all about the future of environmental protection, all about the capacity to engage in collective bargaining in the future, all about the protection of cultural industries and ensuring you have some control over your own culture, over what's printed in your own newspapers, over the kind of programming on your radio stations, your television stations. Is some of it made in Canada to reflect Canadian values or is it all imported from somewhere else and expressing other values?

Let there be no mistake about it, the MAI is trying to put in place rules which give investors, large international corporations, more rights than groups or organizations that want to have strong environmental laws within a jurisdiction.

Let me give you an example. The MAI the way it is written right now is very much based upon the North American free trade agreement. The North American free trade agreement gives corporations standing to sue a jurisdiction if that jurisdiction implements environmental laws which might have an impact on a corporation or its product. Canada rightly decided, I believe, not to allow certain fuel additives to be put into fuel in Canada. As a result, Ethyl Corp, an American-based corporation, I understand, is now suing Canada for $350 million, saying that Canada's decision to protect our environment harmfully impacts Ethyl Corp, and if we want to stand up and protect our environment, we have to give $350 million of payola to Ethyl Corp.

The MAI seeks to enshrine those sorts of nonsensical rules in international law. It seeks to create those sorts of nonsensical rules among all of the OECD countries. Then it wants to project those rules into the World Trade Organization so that all countries would have to agree to them.

1750

That's what it's about: Give investors, give global corporations greater power than they've ever had before, power to fight against environmental protection; power to fight against a publicly administered, publicly funded health care system; power to fight against a publicly funded, publicly administered education system; power to say that a given jurisdiction can't enact free collective bargaining laws because those free collective bargaining laws might interfere or in some way impact upon that corporation's profits or prospective future profits.

I want it to be very clear. We're not opposed to the global economy. We know the global economy is here. What this debate is about is simply this: What kind of global economy will it be? Will it be a global economy where international corporations run roughshod over all the rest of us and dictate what sorts of environmental protections we'll be allowed to have, determine what sort of cultural identity we'll be allowed to have and what sorts of cultural protections we can build in, can tell us, "Oh, you're limited in terms of having the publicly funded, publicly administered education system because if you expand it too far it might have some sort of negative impact on our future profits"?

We're not opposed to the global economy, but we want people to be very thoughtful about writing the rules of that global economy. We know there need to be rules, but we need to have rules not just covering trade and investment; we need to have rules that say environmental standards will be applied, that corporations will not be benefited by picking on countries that have weak environmental rules and saying, "If you maintain these weak environmental protections, we'll invest here." We want protections for labour standards. We don't want corporations to be able to sort of gallivant across the globe and say: "We'll move production to this jurisdiction because they've got not only low environmental standards but low health and safety standards. We'll locate our production there to the detriment of everyone else."

We want protections for those kinds of things. We want international rules that provide that jurisdictions can have a publicly funded, publicly administered system of medicare, that you don't have to buy into some global international corporate perspective on health care or education.

We want rules, but we want rules that respect the environment, labour standards, health and safety standards, environment standards, cultural standards. We don't want rules that simply protect investors and then say to everyone else, "Now that we've protected investors, you can go talk with them."

That's very clear. It's very clear that's what is in the MAI. The MAI would give investors incredible protection in terms of their powers and rights. It would allow them to sue jurisdictions that want to expand their health care system and do it publicly, who want to expand their education system and do it publicly. It would allow corporations to sue where you bring in environmental standards. It gives global corporations, investors, almost superpower among all of the other issues out there that we think need to be debated, discussed and have supporting rules.

What does this MAI agreement say for core labour standards of freedom of association and collective bargaining? What does it say about prohibition of forced labour? What does it say about the elimination of child labour exploitation and non-discrimination in the workplace? What does it say? Does it provide any protections at all here? None. It provides none. All it says is that there ought to be some sort of collateral assurances for these things. I think we know what that means. I think we know that means that the rights of investors, the rights of global corporations, are up here and all the other things I've listed are down here. They come after, if they come at all.

That's not good enough. In fact I would argue it is totally the wrong direction, as if global corporations, as if banks and investment organizations, which now have control over more capital, more wealth than the majority of countries in the world, need more protection, as if health care needs less protection, as if the environment needs less protection, as if labour standards need less protection.

The problem with the MAI, besides the fact it's got the concept of putting investors first, besides that being wrong, is that it gives everything else that's important no attention at all, no emphasis at all.

We would argue that if we're going to have a rules-based global economy, the proper direction would be to negotiate protections for the environment, to negotiate protections for labour standards, to negotiate protections for cultural standards, to negotiate protections for education and health standards first - they are the things that are most important - and after that, sit down and look at the rights and the powers of global corporations and to what extent they need to be protected.

There's another part of this that is quite insidious. I mentioned earlier that the strategy on the part of global corporations here is to take what they got into the North American free trade agreement giving them the right to sue jurisdictions that bring in environmental standards, that bring in labour standards, that bring in cultural standards - they want to take that clause and put it in this Multilateral agreement on investment. The MAI is being negotiated at the OECD table, but that's not the end of it. What they then want to do, having established it at the OECD, is to take it to the poorer countries in the world and say to them: "You now have to live by this. It has to become part of the World Trade Organization, the world trade agreement."

Third World countries are very clear on what this means. They're very clear that this is an effort to go back to the sort of colonial attitude that we saw in the last century, where companies like the Levant, the British East India, the Dutch East India Co, the Hudson's Bay Co would hold a meeting to carve up the Third World and decide what happened where in the Third World. In many ways this is another attempt to do that again. First you do it among the organized economies. Then, once it's done among the organized economies, you can tell the poorer economies of the world: "These are the new rules. International corporations reign supreme. You cannot do anything in your country to bring in higher environmental standards. You cannot bring in higher health standards. You cannot bring in regimes which protect labour standards, health and safety or collective bargaining. You cannot do anything to protect your own indigenous culture."

That's the strategy here, and we wanted it debated today. We wanted it debated today because we believe that if this agreement happens, it will have an incredible impact on Ontario's health care system down the road, an incredible impact on our capacity to have strong environmental standards down the road, an incredible impact on our capacity to have strong labour standards and health and safety standards down the road. So we want more attention focused on this debate. We want more people across Canada, especially here in Ontario, to understand that if we're going to fight for a strong health care system, a strong education system, strong environmental protection, strong labour protection -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Silipo has moved opposition day motion number 1. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1759 to 1804.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Crozier, Bruce

Duncan, Dwight

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Miclash, Frank

Patten, Richard

Pouliot, Gilles

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Saunderson, William

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Spina, Joseph

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 22; the nays are 57.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost. It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1808.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

11 mai 1998