Journal des débats 1986-déc-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Partington: As we come to the end of the first full sitting to be broadcast to the province through television coverage, I would like to pay tribute to Bill Somerville and his staff.

We have seen many entertaining, emotional, enlightening and sometimes boring presentations during the past few months. Members have been caught with mouths yawning, eyes closed and, in the case of the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan), shoes off.

All kidding aside, the addition of television to the House has added to the dissemination of information about what we do here. The director of education for East York, Dick Dodds, may have difficulty understanding the process, but I am sure many insomniacs across Ontario appreciate our efforts.

Once again, thanks to the legislative broadcast and recording service for a job well done.

ARMENIAN MEMORIAL DAY

Mr. Warner: In 1916, Anatole France said in a lecture at the Sorbonne: "Armenia expires but will be born again. The little blood that is left to it is precious blood which will generate a heroic posterity. A people who do not wish to die will not die."

Genocide is a terrifying word. Reasonable, rational people have difficulty believing that anyone would want to exterminate an entire race of people. It becomes equally difficult for many of us even to talk about such a horrible part of our history, but we must talk about it. The world should learn about the Armenian genocide and never forget the event.

When Adolf Hitler decided to exterminate the Jewish race, one of the things he said was, "Who will remember the Armenians?" We should remember the Armenians. We should have an opportunity each year to remember the Armenians, namely, April 26.

It is unfortunate the Conservatives in Ottawa have decided to neglect the campaign promise they made, but surely all of us can raise our voices here and say we shall never forget the Armenians.

ARTS FUNDING

Mr. McLean: I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the recent funding announcement by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) for various cultural groups and other institutions. According to the most recent economic figures, the funding increase of four per cent will not observe inflationary increases in many sectors of the economy. There will be little opportunity for expanding programs; in some instances, groups will receive less than the rate of inflation.

This appears to be a contradiction of the stated goals of the present minister. As recently as September 1986, the minister stated "the Ontario government has made cultural developments a priority. We are now about to move ahead, confident that our major cultural institutions are developing a stable base and an enduring infrastructure."

In the light of this recent funding announcement, the minister has not lived up to her promises. Many of the cultural institutions involved provide an incalculable service to the communities they represent. Many are in rural areas where access to large cultural events is limited. The vitality of these groups must be preserved. It is incumbent on this government in time of economic prosperity to provide greater assistance to our art groups and institutions.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: It is unbelievable that the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) continues to refuse to order an in-depth comparison of the rates and policies of the driver-owned public auto insurance plans in the three western provinces with those of Ontario's system. I wonder that anybody would not want to know why rates in comparable communities in Manitoba are at least a third lower than they are in Ontario; why rates in Manitoba have gone up by only 8.4 per cent in the past five years compared to a 40 per cent to 50 per cent increase here; how those public plans can charge good drivers the same rate regardless of age, sex or marital status; why in the public auto insurance plans only the guilty drivers, not everyone in a household, pay penalty rates; or how the public plans in the west ensure that all motorists have insurance, unlike Ontario which has 250,000 people driving uninsured.

Why would any minister who subscribes to responsibility not carry out a resolution of this House calling on him to authorize an independent, comprehensive and in-depth comparison of the rates and policies of those plans with those of the plans in Ontario? The answer is obvious. Because of the minister's philosophical bias and close ties with the giant insurance companies, he does not want the people of Ontario to know the advantages of the public plans. He simply does not want the people to know.

TABLING OF POLL RESULTS

Mr. Harris: I would like to read a quote from Hansard:

"We must share all information freely and openly with those who belong to other parties and with those who belong to no party. We must give people the information they need to participate in the process of government.

"For example, why should it be the exclusive prerogative of the government to see polls taken with public money? They should be available for all, for opposition parties and for everyone in this province, to study, examine and draw one's own conclusions. Our guiding rule should be simple. Any information that helps the government to shape policies should be available to all so that they can assess those policies."

That is what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said one and a half years ago. Seven months ago, the Premier said, "I do not take polls." When asked on October 22 what polls he had commissioned, the Premier asked for 13 weeks to prepare an answer. Obviously, he does polling to the extent that it will take 13 weeks to figure out what all the polls are so he can table the answer. I find this unbelievable -- 13 weeks to respond for a Premier who cannot decide whether he conducts polls, let alone whether he believes in sharing these polling data? Who is the Premier trying to kid?

[Later]

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, a minute and a half ago, I was on my feet talking about polling information, and I am glad to carry on in the 30 seconds you have provided to me.

This is another example of the government, by grandiose pronouncement and grandiose press release, saying it believes in one noble principle, but its actions belie that and give rise to another. Once again, we ask, does the Premier believe in sharing polling information or does he not? It is obvious to us that these grandiose pronouncements and press releases are one thing, while he is quietly doing something else on the sly. If that is not the case, why will he not table those full results today?

STUDENT PEACE GROUP

Mr. Allen: In recent years, polls and studies of young people and their fears and attitudes with respect to nuclear war have indicated one of the major problems they have is that their parents and teachers simply will not or do not discuss this issue with them and help them to cope with it.

In the past few weeks, a group from Montreal known as Students Against Global Extermination has been travelling this province and meeting with our high school students. They have a remarkable reputation, established over a few years in Montreal and in Quebec, where they have won the praise of administrators, teachers and students for the frank, intelligent and mature way in which they have opened up this subject for their fellow students.

The National Film Board has recently commissioned a team to record this exercise across the country for use in our schools and by young people and in our communities. The film board has done its usual funding, but that leaves some funds short in the needs to produce this film. In August and again in October, a request was made to the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) to assist in this task and to provide some funding from the learning materials development fund.

I want to stand on behalf of our members in this Legislature, and I hope other members, to encourage the minister to provide every support he can for recording this document for future use.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: Some months ago, I had several questions in Orders and Notices in this Legislature. I find deplorable the way the government is answering these questions. I find it difficult to understand why a question I had in Orders and Notices last July has never been answered. I have had many questions there that are very important to the ratepayers and taxpayers in this province. It is hard to understand the incompetence this government is showing towards the people of Ontario.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing in the Speaker's gallery today the Minister of Education for Jamaica, the Honourable Dr. Neville Gallimore, and the Deputy High Commissioner for Jamaica, Mrs. Kay Baxter. Welcome to the Legislature.

13:44

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WEILER REPORT

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have two fairly brief statements.

In early 1985, the government of the day asked Professor Paul Weiler to conduct an analysis of pension systems for injured workers with permanent partial disability. Professor Weiler has completed this task, and I am pleased to present his report and its appendices to the House today.

As honourable members will see, Professor Weiler has recommended, as he did in his 1980 report, Reshaping Workers' Compensation in Ontario, that a dual-award system of compensation be adopted. Such a system would recognize both the economic and noneconomic loss suffered by an injured worker with a permanent partial disability.

Members will notice there are some differences between the recommendations in this report and his earlier recommendations. He recommends now that the award for noneconomic loss should take the form of a lifetime pension, rather than the lump sum payment he proposed in 1980. He has also proposed a wage loss award as a second component of a dual-award system.

Today's report will generate considerable public interest. I think a full, well-informed public discussion of the matter is necessary. Accordingly, I have instructed my ministry to make the report more widely available as soon as possible. In addition, the government will be referring the report to a committee of this assembly for its consideration.

Mr. McClellan: I want to respond to the statement of the Minister of Labour about the long-awaited Weiler report. What we have, to nobody's surprise, is a warmed-over, rehashed version of the report Mr. Weiler issued in 1980.

For this we have been waiting 18 months. For this rehashed, warmed-over 1980 Weiler version, the minister has postponed reforms to the Workers' Compensation Act, has postponed eliminating the infamous meat chart approach to compensation and is now proposing, if one can believe it, to waste everybody's time further by sending this magnum opus to a committee for further deliberation.

Just so members will understand what is being proposed, by way of an example, an injured worker with a 20 per cent permanent partial disability injury for a low-back injury, under the Weiler version that was presented today, would get the magnificent sum for pain and suffering of $500 per year from the Workers' Compensation Board. That is per year, not per month or per week but $500 per year, which would be 20 per cent of 10 per cent of the average industrial wage; that is what Mr. Weiler is recommending for pain and suffering.

Second, he would receive a wage loss award on a formula that would be totally up to the discretion of the Workers' Compensation Board for the nature of the award, the amount of the award and the duration of the award, which would be given for a maximum of three years.

I do not think I could possibly have dreamed up a more unjust, a more unfair, a more ridiculous and a more unacceptable set of proposals than the minister has tabled in the House today, which he should at least have the decency to dismiss out of hand.

Another feature of the report is the magnificent proposal to replace the current meat chart of the Workers' Compensation Board with the meat chart of the American Medical Association.

I say once again that we are fed up to the teeth with the inactivity of this Minister of Labour and with his continual excuses for inactivity and inaction. The minister has had 18 months to bring forward proposals to reform the Workers' Compensation Board. If this is all he can do, he should ask to be relieved of his onerous duties, step down and let somebody else do the job.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It was a little less than a year ago today that I had the honour to present to this assembly a bill to provide for an automatic annual adjustment in workers' compensation benefits tied to movements in the consumer price index and designed to take effect every January 1.

I am pleased to inform honourable members this afternoon that, effective January 1, 1987, workers' compensation benefits and the ceiling on covered earnings will rise by 4.4 per cent. When this assembly approved the annual adjustment legislation last December 17, it provided Workers' Compensation Board pensioners with protection against increases in the cost of living as a matter of statutory right.

When this assembly voted for the bill, it made a commitment to compassion, wisdom and foresight. The announcement I have just made is a fulfilment of that commitment.

Mr. Gillies: By way of response to the two statements made by the Minister of Labour, I indicate on behalf of our party, first, that we welcome the increase he is announcing to the workers' compensation benefits. I can only echo the words of the minister that the change in the indexing system last year does not seem to have caused any additional problems to the WCB above those it is already experiencing. We are glad that at least this aspect of the operation is working.

With regard to the new Weiler report on the question of permanent partial disability, we will read it with interest. I have had a chance to flip through some of the points made in this report. It leaves more questions unanswered than it answers. It asks the basic question, should there be a change in the system or should there not? I do not think there is any disagreement in this House that there should be changes. We are willing to look at whether we should go to a dual-award system, whether, to quote the report, it should be a "duplicative or a redistributive award." But there is woefully little by way of conclusion in this statement, and it causes us some concern.

I am sure the minister will agree -- he would have to agree -- that there is a great deal of unhappiness surrounding the Workers' Compensation Board. This report does not speak to the cost of reform. It does not speak directly to the ongoing concerns of injured workers and the labour movement about the continuing existence of the meat chart. On the other side of the coin, it does not speak to the legitimate concerns of the business community about skyrocketing assessments and costs of the board.

There are details in here that I think may have merit. On the question of the rating schedule, a switch to the American Medical Association guide as opposed to the system now used may have merit; we are willing to look at it. I suppose we can do so when the committee of this Legislature examines the report. However, on the big, substantive issues that face the WCB, we do not see the kind of answers in this report that we believe the minister should be bringing forward, not in the future, not by way of future stalling tactics, but now.

SERVICE SECTOR

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am pleased to table the final report of a major study of the service sector in Ontario. This study was carried out under the direction of George Radwanski, who was appointed by the government in October 1985 to examine the role of the service sector in Ontario's economy and to identify opportunities to further strengthen the contribution of this important sector to the creation of wealth and employment for Ontario.

The service sector now accounts for 73 per cent of employment and 70 per cent of gross domestic product in Ontario. It is expected to provide some 80 per cent of all new jobs over the next decade.

The wide-ranging report I am tabling today analyses the roles of education, entrepreneurship, social policy and export initiatives in a strategy to maximize growth opportunities in an economy where knowledge-intensive services play such an important role. It also assesses the likely applications that a Canada-United States free trade deal would have for the service sector and it looks at some initiatives for specific industries.

I call the members' attention to the attractive binding of this report, which has my personal approval.

Mr. Pope: In brief response to the statement of the Treasurer, as he so aptly put forward, the most noteworthy item in the study is the colour of the cover. That is what the Treasurer found noteworthy, and I agree with him.

I hear we have a study of the service sector, which the Treasurer now predicts will take 80 per cent of the future jobs in Ontario. The priority of this government is to study the service sector and to study the issue. In the meantime, the resource sector is going to hell in a hand basket, and this government is doing nothing about it.

The Premier has failed in his free trade discussions in Vancouver. He has failed to protect jobs in the mining industry and he has failed to protect jobs in the steel industry. He has not addressed the coming problems in the automotive manufacturing and assembly sector. He has failed to address the coming problems of international competitiveness in the manufacturing sector at all. All the workers in these industries will see with some interest that this government is interested only in the service sector.

LIQUOR WAREHOUSE

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: On November 26, 1986, I made a statement in the House responding to the Provincial Auditor's comments relating to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

At that time, I mentioned that the LCBO had established a task force to look into certain inventory shortages or discrepancies at the Kipling Avenue leased warehouse and two public warehouses. I have now received a copy of the final report and I am today making it public by tabling it with the Clerk of the House.

As I said in my remarks on November 26 concerning the two public warehouses, the Provincial Auditor indicated acceptance of the conclusion reached by the LCBO internal auditors that the discrepancies were due to errors in bookkeeping.

In connection with the Kipling Avenue leased warehouse, the task force report indicates $76,000 in unexplained differences. The report goes on to say: "...there is sufficient evidence to conclude that most discrepancies are attributable to recording and reporting errors. By extrapolation, this amounts to approximately $358,000, leaving less than $76,000 as unexplainable differences. Given that the LCBO is aware of five convictions of theft, it is possible that this amount could be attributable to theft."

A copy of the task force report has been forwarded to the Provincial Auditor.

Mr. Philip: With reference to the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, we have brought up in this House over and over again the problems at the Kipling Avenue warehouse. I say to him that the matter will be going before the public accounts committee, which will get to the bottom of where the booze has disappeared to.

Mr. Swart: I want to comment too on the report of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on the LOBO task force. I am amazed by what is not in it. There is no mention of whether there is a continuing police investigation going on, even though about $76,000 worth of liquor is missing. There is no commitment in this report to implement the recommendations made in the task force report.

The minister has treated this with the kind of indifference it does not deserve. He should be doing a job to get that place in order.

MINISTRY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
NURSING HOMES

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have reviewed the Provincial Auditor's report with staff from my ministry. The report deals with two subjects that touch directly on the ministry's operations. These are the inventory management system and inspections of homes for the aged.

Essentially, my staff and I agree with the Provincial Auditor's concerns that more attention must be given to control of our inventory of fixed assets. A draft of the Provincial Auditor's findings on movable assets was presented to my ministry in September 1986. Since that time, I am pleased to report that a number of specific actions have been taken to improve deficiencies noted by the Provincial Auditor.

In his report, the auditor noted that only 153 of our 194 ministry cost centres had completed physical inventory counts. As of this date, however, I am pleased to report that physical inventory counts have been completed in all of our 194 cost centres and I feel that our inventory system is now fully up to date.

Looking towards the future, our capital and administrative services branch staff have reviewed the inventory management system. Changes will be made to ensure that our reporting system is more easily maintained and that more useful reports on the condition of our fixed assets are produced for management.

The Provincial Auditor's comments on homes for the aged are more difficult for this ministry to implement. Basically, we do not agree the ministry should begin to carry out detailed inspections of these homes. In discussions with the Provincial Auditor, we pointed out there are significant differences between, on the one hand, private, profit-making nursing homes and, on the other, charitable and municipal homes for the aged. We are confident boards of directors of our charitable homes are deeply concerned about the quality of care for their clients.

Earlier this year, my ministry developed a document entitled Ministry Accountability Framework. It outlines the kinds of formal relationships my ministry wishes to develop with all its funded agencies. The salient point in that document is that the management of agencies is the responsibility of the boards of directors. These boards should be held primarily accountable, where appropriate, for the quality of care their clients receive.

Many boards require support and ongoing assistance to carry out these responsibilities. The kinds of tangible supports provided to the boards to help them manage their programs will include training packages for new board members, program guidelines and manuals, professional consulting services and access to research and statistical data on management issues.

Some of these supports, such as specialist expertise and program guidelines, are already in place. Other supports, such as training packages for new board members, are being implemented. I intend to appoint a senior staff member within the next few weeks to be responsible for putting this new accountability policy into effect.

We are working co-operatively with our associations in the development of this framework and we have their support. Because this initiative will take some time to be implemented fully, I am reviewing the practices of our program supervisors to ensure they can continue to support our agencies.

However, in the long run, I agree with the comments of the president of the Ontario Association of Homes for the Aged, who said, in a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star on December 5, "We know there is always room for improvement but suggest the current system is more protective of residents than" would be "a rigid adversarial monitoring system."

Last, I would like to comment in a general way on the follow-up procedures on audit recommendations. Like other ministries, my ministry has its own internal audit program. Many of the findings noted in the Provincial Auditor's report are drawn from our internal reviews.

Where management agrees that auditors' recommendations need to be pursued, we have very specific procedures in place. All audit recommendations are summarized by responsibility centre. Individual managers who are responsible for implementing changes are identified. Three times each year, staff in the audit branch reviews the progress made in implementing changes. Reports on progress and difficulties in compliance are raised with senior management. I am confident we are pursuing audit recommendations in a thorough and systematic manner.

I conclude by expressing my personal appreciation to the auditor. The work undertaken by his office, mandated by this Legislature, gives us in government a crucial second opinion on our management practices and procedures.

Mr. Andrewes: By way of response to the statement of the Minister of Community and Social Services, on page 3 the minister indicates, "The Provincial Auditor's comments on homes for the aged are more difficult for this ministry to implement." I do not find that statement surprising, but on the other hand, I think he continues to add to the confusion.

Clearly, this is the issue. He points out that the auditor is confused by the plethora of delivery mechanisms for care for the elderly. He points out that there are significant differences between, on the one hand, private profit-making nursing homes and, on the other hand, charitable and municipal homes for the aged.

The auditor is confused. The public who are asking for these services are confused. The people who are living in these institutions and their families are confused. They are confused about who is to deliver what level of service, who is to pay for this level of service, where the accountability is and where the equality in level of funding is.

Surely the public deserve a better explanation because they deserve to be assured that in the services they are seeking, whether they be in homes for the aged, in charitable or municipally run homes or in nursing homes, there be a level of service that is consistent.

Surely that points out the need for the minister, his colleague the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) and his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to proceed with the extended care legislation.

MINISTRY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to inform the House of action my ministry is taking in response to the Provincial Auditor's report.

My ministry takes the Provincial Auditor's reports very seriously. We use them to improve our administrative and management practices and we find the advice and comments they contain extremely helpful. They are an integral part of the ongoing refinement of my ministry's management processes. My ministry has a strong senior management committee, chaired by my deputy minister, which reviews all auditor's reports and makes sure corrective action is taken.

The auditor's report stated that 3,500 movable assets worth $1.7 million were missing from my ministry. This is not quite correct. The source of the auditor's figures was not a report of missing items; it was a computer list of incorrect records caused mainly by a series of office relocations and building renovations.

Our present task is to correct these records, and we expect this to be done by March 31, 1987. We are also taking physical counts and reconciling these with inventory records. This process should also be completed by that date.

We have also established a task force prior to the audit to review our movable assets control program and make recommendations to improve it. These improvements will be in place by April 1, 1987.

The auditor's report called for strengthening management control of the W. Darcy McKeough Floodway project. The final phases of this project will be overseen by a program management committee comprising ministry and conservation authority personnel.

Finally, Management Board secretariat is reviewing the application of the Income Tax Act to ministry housing and the implications for taxable benefits. We expect a report will be made by the end of the fiscal year. My ministry will be guided by the provisions of that report.

Mr. Philip: The Minister of Natural Resources did not say in his statement whether all of the 3,500 assets costing approximately $1.7 million are now accounted for. It is little wonder that this minister cannot count the trees in this province, since he cannot even count the desks in his own ministry.

When the auditor's report was tabled, showing that this government is so disorganized that two of its ministries did not even have any kind of accounting system whatsoever for movable assets, a story was leaked from the Office of the Premier, in which two members of the standing committee on public accounts were publicly slandered. Since then, there has been no public apology to those two members from the Premier's office. If the Minister of Natural Resources is not gracious enough to apologize to the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), then at least the Premier (Mr. Peterson) should stand in the House and give an apology for the slander on the movable assets apparently attributed to his office.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr. Speaker: Before I call for oral questions, members will remember there was a discussion on a point of privilege last Thursday. I have reviewed it and have a fairly lengthy reply to the member. I ask your indulgence. I hope it may clarify the difference between a point of order and a point of privilege as well.

On Thursday, December 11, 1986, during the question period, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) rose on a question of privilege, alleging that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had wrongly interpreted what he had said and objecting strongly to the fact that the Premier had intimated the member had no confidence in the Ontario Provincial Police.

After hearing several members on this point, I undertook to review what had been said and report back to the House. I think it is important to set out the proceedings as they occurred last Thursday.

First, the member for Brantford, in asking a question of the Premier, used the following words: "The nature of the inquiry in this matter becomes very important. The Premier cannot have officials of his government investigating a mishandling of a matter by his government."

Second, the Premier, in replying to the honourable member's question, stated the following: "I think the honourable member made one of the most outrageous propositions I have ever heard in this House. He said that he does not have faith in the OPP to be objective and go into this matter."

Third, at this point the member for Brantford rose, objecting to the use by the Premier of the statements just quoted. What he was doing at this point, when he rose on a question of privilege, was in fact an attempt to set the record straight. That is perfectly in order in our practice, and Beauchesne refers to it as point of personal explanation: May, page 355; Beauchesne, fifth edition, page 101, line 20.

The matter could rest there if it was simply a matter of setting the record straight, but I interpreted the gist of the member's question of privilege to intimate that he desired the Premier to withdraw the offending words.

Let me now go into various definitions of terms that are used in this chamber to bring certain matters to the attention of the Speaker.

The first is a question of privilege. This procedure is an extremely limited one in our parliamentary tradition and should be used sparingly. It is the appropriate procedure when a member feels he or she has somehow been impeded in his or her duties as a member of the Legislature. That is to say that arguments on a question of privilege should tend to convince the Speaker that a member has been somehow stopped or restricted in his or her duties. This procedure should be followed by a motion which would be put to the House if the Speaker, after studying the facts, found that there was a prima facie case of privilege. Both May and Beauchesne define privilege as follows:

"Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the high court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.

"The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are `absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.' They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.

"A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament." I hope the members will pay attention to that. "It should be dealt with by a motion giving the House power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy. A genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter and should be taken seriously by the House."

Second is a point of order. This is a procedure which is used much more frequently. Its purpose is to bring to the attention of the Speaker an infringement upon the standing orders of this House or, in a wider sense, upon our practice and traditions that guide our deliberations in this chamber.

It is very clear from the examination of the facts of last Thursday that this is not a question of privilege. The honourable member was not in any way impeded from exercising his duties as a member of this Legislature. The only thing it can be is a point of order, if the member is claiming that the Premier, in the terms of standing orders 19(d)(8) and 19(d)(9), is "making allegations against another member" or "imputing false or unavowed motives to another member."

On this point, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) made a presentation, for which the Speaker thanks him, and referred to a precedent of this House in which Mr. Speaker Turner brought to order the Honourable Attorney General Mr. McMurtry on December 1, 1983. The case at that time, however, was different in that the comments pertained to a "totally vicious and unprincipled attack that was made on the judiciary in Ontario." At the request of the Speaker at that time, the Attorney General withdrew his remarks.

After reviewing very carefully the language used last Thursday, I can only find that the Premier did impute motives to the member for Brantford and I would ask him to withdraw his remarks. I can clarify those remarks if so desired.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the thing I understood was the last line. I gather I am at fault and I humbly apologize to you, to the honourable member and to whoever else I offended by so doing.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I hope the members will re-read this in Hansard so they are fully aware of points of order and points of privilege.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: There is no debate. Is there another point of order? There is no debate.

14:15

ORAL QUESTIONS

DOWNSVIEW REHABILITATION CENTRE

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with the holidays coming, I can hardly wait to get a copy of your remarks and have a chance to study them over the holiday season.

I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Last week, my colleague raised with the minister the unfortunate and potentially dangerous circumstances through which an injured worker is put in the event, as happens with all injured workers, he has to go to Downsview with the current problems overhanging the hospital. Having had several days to reflect on the problem, is the minister prepared to rise in his place today and indicate that injured workers will have an option other than being required to go to Downsview?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not certain what the honourable member means by the word "dangerous," but it should be clear to the Leader of the Opposition and to all members of the House that very often there is an alternative to Downsview. An injured worker often goes to Downsview on the recommendation of his or her physician because, for whatever reason, the physician believes the assessment work that needs to be done cannot be done in the worker's community. In many cases, injured workers can get the assessment and treatment work done in their own communities should their physicians request that it be done there.

However, on those occasions when the assessment needs to be done at Downsview, I can assure injured workers there is no need for them to worry about going there. By the beginning of the year, we will have an office of the worker adviser in place in Downsview. Should injured workers believe they have need of that office, they can ask for its services as quickly as they need them.

Mr. Grossman: For the sake of being accurate and not being perceived as making a statement the public would misunderstand, I know the minister will want to clarify the case. I know he will share with me the view that referrals are made by the board to Downsview, not to a variety of places.

Having spoken to several sources at Downsview this morning, our information is that 50 per cent of the injured workers being contacted and referred there are now declining to go. The minister has put them in the position where they must go to a facility to which they do not want to go and about which they are worried; where, so the allegations say, women are forced to shower in front of men and where drug and alcohol abuse are reported to be rampant. He is putting them in a circumstance where they must either go against their wishes or lose their right to compensation. That is the fact.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: What option does the minister suggest and what has he done to provide an option for workers who do not want to put themselves in those circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I regret we have not yet had time to complete the beginnings of a program for decentralization of these kinds of services, which we wish to put in place. There have been discussions with organizations in Thunder Bay, Sudbury and a number of other communities about establishing in those communities the kinds of services that have been delivered in the past at Downsview.

I do not have any figures on any problems that may or may not be encountered by injured workers attending Downsview when their attendance is necessary. I reiterate for the Leader of the Opposition and for injured workers who might have to go to Downsview that in many cases, with the advice and approval of the attending physician, alternative arrangements can be made for this kind of work to be done in the injured worker's own community. Injured workers should request that of their physicians. Should they go to Downsview, I can assure those workers that if there are any problems they can speak to the office of the worker adviser.

I add one final thing. The showering example used by the Leader of the Opposition is a most unfortunate one, since the only showering that is done in public view is done by both males and females with bathing suits on prior to using the pools at Downsview.

14:20

Mr. Grossman: Let us be accurate. Thousands of workers do not have an option. They are required by the board to go to Downsview to get their compensation. For those injured workers, the issue is not whether the minister wants to decentralize into North Bay and Sudbury. That is not the question we are asking. The issue is about the thousands of workers who are required to go there to get their benefits.

Given the horrendous allegations that have been made and given that thousands of workers may be at risk -- the minister will have to acknowledge that; he must acknowledge it, or he would not have ordered yet another task force study -- the minister is saying to the workers, "While we review this once again, I, the minister, am prepared to sit back and let thousands of you go through with no alternative, even if you do not want to, while the study is being conducted."

What specific arrangements is the minister making so that thousands of workers will not need to be forced to go through a facility that he himself is acknowledging has to undergo further study and review?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It will be useful for us to review the kinds of investigations that are under way. First, there have been a number of matters that I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will acknowledge may be criminal in nature. Those matters are being investigated by the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

A number of serious allegations have been made about alcohol and drug abuse and the like, which do not put patients at risk but which certainly can contribute to an unpleasant atmosphere. These are allegations not unlike those faced by many other hospitals in the province. As the Leader of the Opposition will know if he has read the inquiry team report of last week, a number of specific actions are being undertaken to ensure that kind of abuse by patients of the privileges of other patients is ended quickly.

Finally, the inquiry team we put in place last Thursday is designed to review the program at Downsview and to ensure that the program delivery all honourable members want is the most effective in North America. A lot of that work was already under way within the board. It was clear to this minister that the legitimate views and concerns of the injured worker community would not be satisfied without an external team. That is why I am so pleased Mr. Stoughton and others have consented to join the team and to put in place an outstanding program at Downsview.

Mr. Grossman: The minister is so devoid of authority within his own ministry that he is prepared to allow the situation to go unattached and unattended for a long time. It is inexcusable.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Grossman: My second question is for the Minister of Labour as well. When we asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on December 4 about the problem surrounding workers being forced to work on Sundays against their will, he responded:

"I am sorry I cannot tell my honourable friend what section of what statute would apply in the circumstances, but I can assure my friend if there is not a statute that is applicable, we will bring one into the House to protect these people."

Mr. Rae: He will make one up.

Mr. Grossman: As the member for York South says, he will make one up.

When the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) returned to the House the next day, I presume he told the Premier he was not prepared to do that, because the next quote we have from the Premier, in the media, which is often the more authentic reference point with the Premier, indicates that one should not rush. He said, "Nevertheless, the government cannot give just an emotional response under the pressures of one particular day." There may not be legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Grossman: Regardless of what happens with the court outcome on Thursday, with another Sunday coming when there will be extensive shopping, will the Minister of Labour tell us whether he is prepared to follow the earlier directive of the Premier to bring in legislation or whether he will follow the directive of the Attorney General, which is no legislation?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: For full-time workers, there is a legislative mandate under the hours-of-work provisions of the Employment Standards Act, which limits the amount of work a worker can be required to undertake in a week to 48 hours. That is in place. People in the work force, whether they are in the manufacturing or the retail community, have the right to decline additional work after working 48 hours in any given week.

Mr. Grossman: Even this minister cannot get away with this sort of thing. The question is not whether workers can be forced to work more than 48 hours; it is, can they be forced to work on Sundays? When we asked the Premier on December 4, he did not know whether a law was in place that would prohibit it. He said that if there were none, if he could not find one, he would bring one in quickly. It now is a week and a half later. We now have gone by two Sundays when employees have been forced to work and the minister refuses to act as Minister of Labour -- remember when he used to be minister for labour? -- to stop it.

My simple question today is this: is the minister going to bring in legislation, as the Premier promised on December 4, to protect employees from being forced to work on Sundays?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I point out to my honourable friend that the Retail Business Holidays Act does not fall under this ministry. The Attorney General made clear that those who run into difficulty in terms of being forced to work should contact him. I gather there has been a level of compliance with the act pending the decision by the Supreme Court this Thursday. The Leader of the Opposition may wish to wait until the Supreme Court makes its ruling this Thursday.

Mr. Grossman: Only one of two things can happen on Thursday. Either the legislation will be upheld, in which case next Sunday will be like last Sunday and the Sunday before and the Sunday before that, with thousands of employees being forced by their employers to work illegally, or the courts will throw out the legislation, in which case Sunday will be wide open and tens of thousands of employees will be forced to work, devoid of the protection the Premier promised on December 4.

The Minister of Labour cannot duck behind the lawsuit on the issue. It has nothing to do with amending legislation that is currently before the courts.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Grossman: Next Sunday, employees are going to be forced to work regardless of what the court rules on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Is the minister going to meet the commitment the Premier gave on December 4 to bring in legislation to protect workers from being forced to work on Sunday?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The Leader of the Opposition may go back and re-read the preamble to his first question. He knows what the Premier said. This government has been following the appropriate course.

I note with interest the comment made on June 11, 1985, by the then Attorney General, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), in terms of deferring possible amendments to Sunday closing legislation:

"Since the validity of provincial Sunday closing and holiday laws under the Retail Business Holidays Act is now before that court in another legal proceeding, we have decided to defer consideration of other amendments in this area until we have an interpretation of the charter."

That is what his colleague said in June 1985. I thought it might be useful for the Leader of the Opposition to hear that comment.

14:30

DAY CARE

Mr. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I was interested in a comment he made today about the significant differences -- I think those are the words he used -- between private profit-making nursing homes on the one hand and charitable and municipal homes for the aged on the other. He went on to say, "We are confident that boards of directors of our charitable homes are deeply concerned about the quality of care for their clients." By implication, or by omission certainly, the private sector homes are not.

If that is the view of the minister and of the ministry with regard to care that is provided for our seniors, why are we now on the verge, as we were with seniors in 1972, of seeing the province provide to private-profit operators daily capital cost and other direct subsidies for children who are in day care centres. Can the minister explain the complete discrepancy between his comments with respect to nursing homes and the policy he is about to announce with respect to day care?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The reference in the statement I made today is intended to convey that homes for the aged, whether operated by charitable boards or by municipal boards, in fact are operated by community boards, whereas nursing homes are not; they are operated by single, private operators. The statement was also intended to convey that those boards have a responsibility to assure themselves that the services for the elderly in the homes for the aged are met. That is the point.

I am not in any way saying the service being offered in private nursing homes is not good. I did not say that. I was making the distinction between where there is a community board responsibility and where there is not. That is the distinction.

Mr. Rae: In all those words, I did not hear an answer to my question.

The province and the government of Ontario are now about to do for child care what the Progressive Conservative Party did to the nursing home industry in 1972. The Liberal Party of Ontario is about to institutionalize and allow to grow chain centres and multinational enterprises, which are going to move into the child care field. They will see it as a place to make money because it is going to be supported directly by the government of Ontario. If the minister does not understand that, he does not have his eyes open.

How can the minister justify that kind of expenditure for private-profit operators when literally tens of thousands of parents are on waiting lists, waiting to find places for their children? Today, those kids are in unlicensed centres and in spaces that are not being adequately supervised. Why is his priority to give aid to those who are operating child care centres for a profit?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The correlation is an apt one because to the best of my knowledge, the Ministry of Health has no intention of doing away with private nursing homes simply because they are part of the existing system. There is, however, a responsibility on the part of my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne) to examine a comprehensive plan for all long-term care. We are doing the same thing with respect to day care. We are examining a comprehensive overall plan for day care, but there is also the recognition that within the existing system, 50 per cent of the licensed spaces are in the commercial market. Given that reality and given the impossibility of replacing those roughly 50,000 spaces, we have to deal with them. If we are going to make changes in the overall system we have to recognize that part of the system as well, not that we are giving any special attention to it.

Ms. Gigantes: Can the minister understand what he is saying? He is saying we have a day care system that meets a tiny fraction of the need. We are talking about 80,000 spaces for 335,000 small children who need care in Ontario. He says, "Half of the 80,000 are being served by the commercial sector; therefore, we are going to give money to the commercial sector." Does the minister not understand that once he starts doing that, the commercial sector is going to be the growing sector and the sector that provides care for children in Ontario? We are going to fall into the same trap as we have done with nursing home services for the elderly in this province.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not think that necessarily follows. Just as there is a roughly 50-50 split between commercial and nonprofit day care spaces, so is there also a roughly 50-50 split between homes for the aged and nursing homes with respect to beds. I have said before, in response to the member, that our new initiatives are going to be primarily in the nonprofit sector. We have said that over and over again.

We are also saying we have a very significant portion of that system now in place, which must be recognized. We are not saying, and I have never said, we are going to give any special impetus to that part of the system but simply to recognize what is already there, the approximately 50,000 children and the thousands of families currently being served by it. We simply cannot ignore that reality.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Minister of Financial Institutions a question about car insurance. Rena Matsumoto, who is only 25 years old and has been driving for five years with no previous accidents and no lost points, had one accident in a parking lot. Can the minister explain how her insurance rate increased to $2,634 a year from $800? How is it that Fran Bates of Toronto, a first-time driver in her mid-40s, is being asked to pay $2,749 a year in Ontario? How is it that the Pearce family is being asked to pay $6,890 in Ontario? How is it that John Adamakopoulos, who owns AB Towing, has seen his rates go to $255,950 in 1986-87 from $29,000 in 1984-85? Can the minister explain those rate increases to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I cannot explain specific rate increases because I do not know the circumstances. The rating system in Ontario is based on historical data; it is based on figures fed into the insurance industry. If the member would like me to investigate those things to see whether other rates are available, I would be happy to do so.

Mr. Rae: I do not think the minister can solve these problems; they have been put before his ministry in many instances and the ministry has been able to do nothing.

Can the minister explain how the province of Manitoba is able to provide rates for similar drivers in similar situations -- in the case of Miss Matsumoto, a difference between $2,634 and $493; in the case of Fran Bates, a difference between $2,749 and $609; in the case of the Pearce family, a difference between $6,890 and $1,430; and in the case of Mr. Adamakopoulos and AB Towing, a difference -- and I hope Mr. Speaker is listening to this, because it is so astounding -- between $259,000 and $19,925? Can the minister explain that to the citizens of this province who are being ripped off systematically by the insurance industry?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I do not know whether I understand the question by the leader of the third party. Is he saying the government-run insurance industry in Manitoba is prepared to provide coverage to Ontario residents at those rates? Is that what he is saying? If he is saying that, it is very interesting, and I will be very happy to entertain that; but if he is not, if he is saying that in Manitoba those are the comparable rates, then his argument is silly, because in Ontario, even before the Manitoba government got into the insurance industry, there had been a significant difference in rates. In 1968, there was a significant discrepancy in the rates, depending on whether the insurance was provided in western Canada or in Ontario. However, I would like to hear his comment before we proceed further.

14:40

Mr. Swart: I remind the minister that he comes into this Legislature time after time, parrots what the insurance companies tell him to say and tries to refute that the rates are far lower in Manitoba than they are here.

Why does the minister not honour the resolution passed by this House on December 4 and order the comprehensive study and comparison of the public insurance plans versus the Ontario system? When he does that, will he ensure that the study and report are done by an independent, respected firm such as Woods Gordon and include comparison of rates, details of cost of operation and information on return to the system of interest on investment?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating the resolution.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The members of the third party are always extolling the virtues of the insurance industry in Manitoba and British Columbia. I have in my hand a publication known as Mandate; it is put out by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member should wait until he hears the results before he starts laughing.

In a survey across the country, they asked about insurance. They said, "Members in British Columbia and Manitoba reported the greatest incidence of large increases, with 29 per cent in both provinces having to pay increases of more than 50 per cent."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the members will allow me to recognize members in an orderly fashion without interjecting.

Mr. Gillies: I guess that is the last we will ever hear about auto insurance from those guys.

SALE OF LANDS

Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the past number of weeks, my colleague the member for Brock (Mr. Partington) and I have asked the minister a number of times about an internal investigation he is conducting into the rather controversial land sale in Vaughan. This investigation seems to be dragging on. Can the minister confirm to the House that this matter is serious enough that the Ontario Provincial Police have been called in to investigate the matter?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I can advise my friend the allegations are serious enough that an investigation is still going on. When I get a report, the members opposite will be the first to hear about it.

Mr. Gillies: The OPP has confirmed to my office that it is investigating this matter.

I want to indicate to the minister where we see this leading. He is part of a government that has the OPP investigating Wyda Systems (Canada) Ltd., Spectrum Semiconductor Inc., the Downsview hospital, the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes) and Lord knows what else. However, there is a common problem in all this. These investigations lead to reports, which in turn end up on the desk of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). In this case, along with the others I mentioned, the matters under investigation have very close ties to the government and to the Liberal Party.

Does the minister not see the wisdom of calling a Municipal Act inquiry, as he is empowered to do, which takes it out of the government and before an independent party? He is empowered to do so, and in fact it has been requested by a number of citizens in the town of Vaughan.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The member is quite right. Under section 180 of the Municipal Act, the petitioner asked the ministry --

Mr. Harris: Six months ago.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Six months ago; that is right. It may have been a little longer than that.

The ministry is still conducting an inquiry into the seriousness of the allegations or rumours. If the member tells me the OPP has told him it is investigating, I would like to know who told him this and when. The allegations are serious enough that they need a thorough investigation, and that is exactly what we are doing.

For the second time in this House, I do not think the member has any faith in the OPP. I remind him that if they are investigating, I am waiting for a report from them.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order: I would have thought the minister heard the retraction by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of that imputation of motive. The minister should withdraw that. I have complete faith in the OPP. It is not I who uses it as a catering service; it is the members opposite.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. To try to keep order and because of what I said earlier, I will ask the minister to withdraw. Will the minister withdraw?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I said "if" to the member.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister withdraw?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I will withdraw.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of explanation regarding the question posed earlier by the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) concerning the Ontario Provincial Police investigation of the Vaughan land sale. I am most upset that the member raised the question, because it was my understanding that his party had agreed to maintain a confidence in this matter. My office specifically provided information on the investigation to his colleague the member for Brock (Mr. Partington). This information was provided on the understanding that the OPP investigation would proceed unencumbered by public disclosure.

This information has now been made public by the member for Brantford, thereby violating the confidence and blowing the cover of the investigative officers. I only hope this disclosure does not affect the successful completion of the OPP investigation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. First, it sounded to me as if that should have come as a ministerial statement because it was an explanation of what had taken place within the ministry. I think I should have a look at it. It should probably have come under ministerial statements.

Mr. Partington: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I did have a meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) and was advised there would be an investigation for a period of three weeks. I undertook at the time not to raise the matter for a three-week period. The three-week period expired on December 11, I believe.

Mr. Stevenson: Why don't you slither back under your rock?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) control himself.

I was going to call petitions. Is this a point of order? Is it on the same point or on a different point of order?

Mr. Gillies: Speaking to the point raised by the honourable minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not need a debate. It was a point of personal explanation he rose on. I said it probably was not a personal explanation but should have come under ministerial statements. It was not a point of order.

Mr. Harris: May I speak briefly to it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No. You are welcome to speak on another point of order.

Mr. Harris: I will speak then on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to hear it.

Mr. Harris: You allowed a full and complete statement by the minister that was inaccurate and incorrect. Then you ruled it was not in order for him to make that statement. I suggest you have two choices. Strike it all from the record, and it will not appear anywhere in Hansard; or allow the member for Brantford, whose name was mentioned in the statement, to respond to the allegation that was made.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to venture into this too much, but I feel you did allow the minister to make an allegation of a rather serious nature. Not to allow members on the opposite side to respond in some manner seems most unfair. The allegation is on the record and it cannot be taken off. It seems to me they have a point of order. The allegation I heard was a rather serious one concerning releasing confidential information. It is pretty dicey to let that sit there and sizzle while we all think about it. I believe they have a right to respond.

Mr. Gillies: I want to put on the record that the facts as stated by my colleague the member for Brock are correct. We co-operated with the minister for a period of time when he asked us to, so that this matter could be investigated in private. The minister has been sitting on this for months. The period for which we agreed to this co-operation has expired. We now are in the last week of the House before the Christmas break. We saw it as our obligation to get this matter out into the open. For the minister to say we have broken any existing arrangement the opposition made with him is not correct.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the record is clear. You have had an opportunity to make your comments.

Mr. Harris: Now we have.

Mr. Speaker: I am always willing to be of assistance, particularly to the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris).

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Now that Ryan Homes, a subsidiary of the Georgian Group, headed by Tony Maida, has had its licence removed, at least temporarily, can he tell me whether he is aware that another subsidiary of Georgian Homes, namely, Barbrook Mills Inc., operating in Oakville and also headed by Tony Maida, is using a similar exit clause to get out of contracts or, in lieu of that, to have a reduction of 1,000 square feet per home for people who have purchased from that company? If he is, what does the minister intend to do about that other subsidiary of the Georgian Group, also headed by Tony Maida?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: What happened with Ryan Homes is that the registrar of the new Ontario New Home Warranty Program notified it that he was proceeding to withdraw registration. If they are caught, the principals have 15 days to appeal. That is the state of the situation.

Tomorrow afternoon I expect the building industry will be making an announcement on how it expects to deal with this problem. I have instructed the people at the Ontario New Home Warranty Program to be ever vigilant in looking at situations such as the member has described. If we find those practices are being carried out, we will do exactly what we did with Ryan and proceed to remove its registration.

Mr. Philip: Assuming the minister removes another couple of registrations, what is to prevent a large conglomerate such as Georgian Homes, with many subsidiary companies, on removal of the registration, from simply transferring the properties it holds under the deregistered company to a registered company and selling at the higher, inflated cost and thereby ripping off the consumers the same way it did before? What is to prevent that, unless the government is going to deal with the Georgian Group per se rather than its numerous subsidiary companies, one at a time?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In the order from the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, those houses that are under dispute have been frozen. They cannot be sold to anyone else until the matter has been resolved by the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal.

14:50

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier and it arises from his inexplicable refusal to order a judicial inquiry into the Wyda matter. The Premier has now had the weekend to consider his position on this. We have had no word from him on whether a judicial inquiry will be called, nor have we had any information from the acting Solicitor General and Attorney General (Mr. Scott) or the Premier on the scope of the Ontario Provincial Police investigation. As a member of the standing committee on public accounts, I think we are entitled to know.

Therefore, I ask the Premier, what is the scope of the OPP investigation? The public accounts committee unanimously found that Mr. Caplan, for instance, had an interest in Wyda, that he was the vice-president of administration and finance and that on the morning of April 10 he negotiated the final payouts of the debts of the company that are now under investigation. The public accounts committee unanimously found these facts and unanimously asked some four months ago for a forensic audit, not just of Wyda but also of Avi Dobzinski, Mr. Caplan and his company and Mr. Fleischmann and his company. Are they all under investigation by the OPP?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To be very frank, I do not know all the terms of reference of the OPP, but may I make this suggestion to the member: why does he not get in touch with the OPP and tell them the things he thinks should be investigated? I am sure they should all be looked into.

Mr. Gillies: Does the Premier not see that by continuing to refuse a public judicial inquiry into this matter, he is putting his own Attorney General in a very difficult situation, as long as the OPP investigation and the ongoing investigation within the ministry end up on that minister's desk, when that minister, as was evidenced before the committee, attended a meeting with principals involved in this in terms of preparing evidence?

Would the Premier not see that it is in the better interests of the public, and indeed of his own government, that this be taken outside and put before a justice, where an impartial third party can review this matter and come to some conclusions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to rethresh old straw, but I think the OPP are an impartial third party. The member may not, but I do. I have great faith in their ability to get on with the matter. I say, let the police do their job. They are there, and if my honourable friend has any particular problems he wants investigated, I gather he talks to them regularly, he should share with them the information he thinks should be investigated.

I think it is proceeding as quickly as can be done in the circumstances. Certainly, the committee of which he is a part has the opportunity at any time it wants to call anybody before it and look at anything it wants to look at. I have no problem with that. We are trying to get to the bottom of this very quickly.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding the courthouse in London. In June, work was started at the courthouse by the Ministry of Government Services. A contractor was not advised that there was friable asbestos in the building, despite the fact that there had been a report since 1980. The Ministry of Labour issued a stop-work order. The acting Minister of Government Services (Mr. Conway) ignored the stop-work order and ordered the contractor back to work. Last Thursday when I raised it with the minister, he gave me some platitudinous answer.

Is the minister aware that at exactly the same time as he was giving me his answer on Thursday, one of his inspectors was issuing yet another stop-work order at the courthouse, that the same contractor was involved and that the Ministry of Government Services was involved in the replacement of a door that had led to the taking down of a wall containing friable asbestos?

If the minister is aware of all these facts, can he tell me whether charges are to be laid against (a) the company and (b) the Ministry of Government Services, which has gone on this way for the past three or four years?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I do not think it will surprise the member to know that we are not in a position yet to make any determination about charges. I am aware of the facts as the member points them out. Mr. Armstrong issued a stop-work order on Thursday of last week in the early part of the afternoon. The issues surrounding the stop-work order were dealt with, were complied with, and Mr. Armstrong lifted the stop-work order on Friday afternoon.

Mr. Martel: I have two questions. Since, on Thursday, inspector Ken Armstrong was correct in writing the order, why did the supervisor, who is the same supervisor who covered up with respect to the prosecution against Pro Electric, go after the inspector for doing his job? One worker who refused to work there was dismissed and has appealed. Can the minister explain why the ministry has not laid charges under section 24 of the act? This woman had been intimidated and dismissed because she refused to work. Where is the minister on this crucial issue?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Quite extensive discussions were undertaken with the woman who was involved in terms of the second floor of the London courthouse in the earlier June incident. At that time, the individual involved expressed a willingness not to pursue the matter; that was her choice and that was her view at the time. It may well have changed, and I will take a look that.

I acknowledge that there is a disagreement as to matters which followed between Mr. Armstrong and his immediate supervisor. I say with regret that my honourable friend has accused the immediate supervisor of covering up another matter that has been under investigation by Mr. Laskin.

I am well aware of the Pro Electric incident. I would have thought my honourable friend would not have reached a judgement but rather would have waited for the Laskin report to see what Mr. Laskin finds the facts to be in that case, as in many others.

FUNDING FOR ENERGY PROJECT

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Last week I read a statement on Interoil, a company whose principal lives in my riding. Why does this minister suppose the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) would pull the plug on Interoil just when it has won two major awards for energy technology in the United States and just when furnace sales are about to take off and expand considerably?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I suggest the member ask that question of the Minister of Energy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you wish a supplementary?

Mr. Stevenson: No. Was that a redirect?

Mr. Speaker: No. The minister said he wished you would ask that question of the other minister; he did not redirect. Do you wish it redirected? It is redirected to the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, I have been fully aware of this whole situation. The government of Ontario put $1.1 million into this whole circumstance and the private sector put in about 10 per cent. On that basis, we thought that would be a very viable company. If it cannot go with that proportion of taxpayers' money in it, the member can realize why this government decided it was not worth pursuing.

Mr. Stevenson: All of this is now going to the US. The American company is now prepared to bankroll the development of these furnaces to the tune of more than $800,000, with sales expectations in 1987 of $3.6 million and in 1988 of $4.7 million. Does the minister want these furnaces built in Ontario or does he want them built in New York?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We want everything that is possible to be built in Ontario.

I cannot believe those people sitting over there should suggest that this government should put in 90 per cent of a venture. We are trying to get out of those things. We are trying to get the private sector, those people who have the initiative, to make those kinds of things go.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

15:00

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Do members want to hear the answer?

The taxpayers of Ontario subsidize that to a great degree, about 90 per cent. That is being more than helpful. The evidence being brought before us is something I do not have. They had about $300,000 worth of stock that could not be sold. If some new interest is going to put up that kind of money, it is new to us. If they could have found a private investor who would have put in the kind of money the member is talking about, this government would have been pleased to participate. That is not what happened, and the member knows it.

Mr. Stevenson: They are going to be built in the United States.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member knows that is not what happened.

Mr. Stevenson: It is so.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: They had about $300,000 of furnaces they could not sell to anybody.

Mr. Stevenson: Two months out of date.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter has been dealt with.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It has been several months since the minister announced he was prepared to build a pipeline to Wallaceburg and Walpole Island so that those communities would no longer have to rely on the St. Clair River as the source of their drinking water. The minister promised he would pay 75 per cent of the capital cost after the federal contribution had been deducted, but he left it to the local councils to deal with the federal government. The federal Minister of the Environment has now said he will not make a contribution. In the light of that refusal, what is the minister's commitment to the Wallaceburg pipeline?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This has been a long-discussed project in terms of tying in not only the communities the member mentioned but also other communities along the way. On a number of occasions, the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy) has discussed this matter with me at great depth and others in the House have discussed matters in their municipalities. I indicated that in those situations where we have an international component to the problem -- that is, where we are dealing with an international waterway -- it would be desirable to have the participation of the federal government.

To this time, I have not been notified; in fairness -- I know the member likes to be fair -- I have not received notification from the federal Minister of the Environment that he is not prepared to intervene in a very positive way in this case. In that eventuality, we will be discussing further possibilities as they relate to the financial arrangements.

Mrs. Grier: I am sure the minister likes to be fair also and, frankly, I do not think it is fair of the minister whose jurisdiction is drinking water in its entirety to say he is waiting for the federal government. The gap is growing between the illusion of the minister's announcements and the reality of pollution problems that remain unsolved.

It has been more than a year since we had a special debate in this House on the question of drinking water, at which point the minister announced he was preparing a drinking water strategy. May I conclude from the minister's remarks today that his drinking water strategy is to announce commitments dependent upon a federal government contribution and then to blame the federal government when the contribution does not come through?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the member were to examine the actions this government has taken during the past 17 months, she would not come to that conclusion. She will be aware that at a conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities this weekend a very strong lobbying effort was made by municipalities right across Canada to secure the kind of federal participation that we feel is necessary and that used to be in effect at one time. I know the member would not want me to abandon those efforts or place the federal government in the position where it could easily get off the hook on matters which relate to all municipalities across this country, including ours.

In regard to the specific pipeline the member mentions, she will be aware through her very extensive research that the amount of money the province has indicated to this time that it is prepared to provide is substantially above the normal amount of money that would be forthcoming unless an exception were made to policy. That exception has been made.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Given the huge backlog of residents, now more than 700, waiting for Ontario Housing units in the city of Barrie, could the minister enlighten me as to when these people might expect housing?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member knows the backlog of supplies of affordable housing has been tremendous. This government has tried to address that problem. The housing problems cannot be resolved in a year or so. My honourable friend knows that in the past year we have approved 19,000 social housing units, plus we have market housing subsidies.

I cannot tell the member offhand what project was approved in Barrie. However, wherever the need was, we tried to address it. Not all areas were addressed. I am sure by the time our five-year program is completed, many of those areas will be addressed.

Mr. Rowe: There are 310 families, not people, who have been waiting for Ontario Housing for more than a year, as well as 95 seniors and 35 people who are handicapped in one form or another. Can the minister assure the House today that his ministry will at least review the case with respect to Barrie, given the tremendous growth rate there and the fact that the vacancy rate in apartments is zero? Can he not at least give us the assurance that he will review it and perhaps take a look at the situation to give us more housing? We cannot leave these people hanging as we have in the past.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I can empathize with the honourable member. I know there is a need in his area, just as there are tremendous needs across the province and the waiting lists are very long because of the shortage of affordable rental units. It is impossible to address all those needs in one year. I cannot pull one application out and review it.

The member must understand there is a process. He would be the first one to stand up in the House and ask me: "Where is the process? Why have you selected those separate from the others?" There is a process that we follow. I empathize with those who are in need and I hope we can address those needs as soon as possible.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. What is the status of the application for funding by the Immigrant Women's Centre in Toronto? Why has the minister not responded to date to three letters from this group requesting funding for a mobile community health centre at a cost of $65,000? This project would reach many immigrant women in this city who would not be reached by the traditional health care system.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable gentleman for the question. I have made an inquiry into the current status of the application and hope to make a report shortly to the member. We talked about this briefly last week. I will be providing him directly with information on that.

We have a number of programs that are currently under review. There are a number of questions of program intent and component. It is my presumption, without having seen a detailed report on it, that this may be one of the programs on which a similar study is being made at this time.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am sure the minister remembers that on April 25 he gave a speech to public health and community workers, in which he highlighted the work of the Immigrant Women's Centre in Toronto. He set it out as being a centre of great example to the entire province. If it is a good enough centre for the minister to brag about, even though he does not fund it, why cannot the ministry respond to the letters the group has sent requesting a meeting and provide funding? If funding is not provided, the work they do for the Italian, Portuguese and other communities within Toronto will cease on March 31, 1987.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I understand the component of funding that is helping to sustain this organization is a municipal one. I indicated to my colleague that I would be looking at the problems associated with having some announcement about the status of that. I am trying to find that information. I will be receiving this week, I am sure, a full report from the program people with respect to meetings or otherwise. We will respond to those letters when I have some detailed information about what it is that seems to be holding up discussion or the finalizing of a decision on the matter.

A number of programs in this province have shown a very clear and capable way of dealing with needs in the community, programs we have not funded but that we would like to laud as organizations that promote and assist the provision of good care in this province. I like to highlight those programs as much as I like to highlight the programs funded by the Ministry of Health or by any part of the government because they are a substantial and important part of our health care system.

15:10

COMPUTER SALES ON CAMPUS

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. A couple of weeks ago I was apprised of the fact that the three campuses of St. Lawrence College were establishing computer stores on campus to sell IBM computers and computer-related equipment. Is the minister aware of this initiative; and if he is does he support it?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I can honestly tell my friend that I am not aware of the issue. I would not want to tell him whether I support it or do not support it until I have more information. I assume he will have additional information in his supplementary, so I await it.

Mr. Runciman: For once the minister is correct. I do have a little bit of additional information.

One of the concerns expressed was about the fact that computers sold through community college outlets would be selling for about 20 per cent less than those sold through small business outlets. John Bulloch, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, has described this government as the most antibusiness government in Canada. I ask the minister to make himself familiar with this matter and to take whatever action is necessary, because this can seriously impact on many small businesses across the province.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend raises a rather interesting point. If it were 20 per cent over what small businesses were selling for, the critic who sits just a couple of seats away from him would ask, "Why is the minister allowing these outrageous costs to be foisted upon students?"

Computer hardware and computer software are an absolute necessity for a number of students in a variety of community college programs, and if St. Lawrence College is providing an environment where the students can get those materials, whether it be hardware or software, at reasonable prices, I will support it, but I do not want to say I support it unequivocally until I get more information.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Education. Given that in the past week or week and a half a coalition of many cultural groups in this province has come together in support of Bill 80, and given the fact that in June the minister made a commitment to me that he would review the heritage languages program and let me know by summer's end whether he would be willing to change the policy to make the heritage languages program part of the elementary school system during the five-hour school day, will the minister tell us whether on Thursday his government will support Bill 80?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is true the honourable member has made a number of representations to me during the past weeks and months. As a matter of fact, I was looking for him last Wednesday in the chamber because we had agreed to have a chat on the subject. I know he was unavoidably detained elsewhere, because I was in the precincts and, for whatever reason, we missed one another.

The member knows this party has been very supportive of heritage languages. We have never disguised our interest in and support for that very important and positive part of education. He knows as well we are going to be debating his private member's ballot item on Thursday. Surely he would not want me in any way to prejudge that debate. I am very anxious that the private members of this assembly have an unfettered opportunity to speak their minds. I know my friend the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis), who is disappearing over the horizon, would want to express his opinion from the point of view of both Scarborough and the official opposition.

I look forward, as I know other members do, to the debate led by the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) that will take place on this subject on Thursday this week.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

15:20

PETITIONS

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr. Grande: I have a petition by the Canadian Arab Federation that reads:

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the members of the Ontario Legislature to vote in favour of Mr. Grande's private member's Bill 80 regarding heritage languages."

It is signed by more than 300 persons who are members of that federation.

NONSMOKERS' PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Ms. E. J. Smith: I wish to present a petition that was sent originally to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We support Bill 71, the Non-Smokers' Protection Act, and ask all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to vote for it in committee and on third reading in the Legislature.

"We urge the government to support this bill by allowing it to pass through all stages of parliament."

It is signed with 59 signatures.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. McGuigan: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

MOTION

REFERRAL OF BILL 7

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the order for third reading of Bill 7 be discharged and the bill be referred back to committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 14, An Act to amend the Oleomargarine Act;

Bill 26, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act;

Bill 131, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The bill and its companion piece, Bill 169, increase the salaries and indemnities of the members of the Legislature by 3.9 per cent, retroactive to the beginning of this fiscal year.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Unfortunately, I would like to go to committee for the correction of three typographical errors.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Nixon moves that subsection 60(1) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out "$37,567" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof "$37,576."

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Nixon moves that clause 62(1)(c) of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out "$13,825" in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof "$13,824."

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Nixon moves that clause 65(1)(a) of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by striking out "$10,156" in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof "$10,516."

Motion agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

15:30

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On section 70:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elston moves that section 70 of the bill as amended by the committee of the whole House be amended as follows:

(a) In subsection (1) by adding the following clause:

"(ca) subsection 33(53);" and

(b) by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(3a) Subsection 33(53) comes into force on the first day of April 1987."

Is everyone clear on the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Elston: This is the section about which we had a considerable amount of discussion last week. Because of the significant ramifications of the amendment that was passed in committee of the whole dealing with the provision of treatment for involuntarily committed individuals, we have, as members of the Legislature, been able to come to an agreement that we ought to have additional time to consider what might be done to make sure the section does not have unintended effects on the treatment of psychiatric patients.

This period of time will allow us to study more intently the results of any amendments, and we can then put our minds to seeing whether there are things that need to be done to clarify what procedures can be delivered by psychiatrists in the institutions around the province. I think this is a much better way than having the section declared on passage of third reading. This will help us, I am sure, to deal with any potential problems that may have inadvertently arisen because of a change in the position of some of my honourable friends.

Mr. Andrewes: I would like to indicate that we will support this amendment. In doing so, I understand there are a number of concerns the ministry has with respect to the amendment, as do a number of people in the medical profession.

In this amendment, the issue is consent asked for by medical practitioners prior to treatment for psychiatric patients and the question of whether that consent should be given over to a provincial review board.

The matter was brought to the House and endorsed by a majority of the Legislature. It had the effect of bringing this whole issue to a head. I say to the minister that we have raised this issue surrounding the question of electroconvulsive therapy on one or two occasions, here and in committee, and we have yet to see a plan of action from the government. We are now in the position where the issue has come to a head and the activities of this amendment have forced the government to move on the matter. It sets a deadline for that activity.

We look forward to participating in this process. With those few brief remarks, I indicate once again our support for the amendment.

Ms. Gigantes: We will be supporting the amendment. The issue raised by the amendments to the Mental Health Act that were passed last week are fundamental to human rights. It is appalling that we will not be getting this kind of declaration until at least April 1, 1987. The issue has been before this Legislature since 1978 in one way or another. I hope the ministry will get it together now and the minister will finally insist that we get together a good system of substitute consent giving and that we have a clear understanding by psychiatrists, among our other medical professionals, about the patient's right to refuse treatment when competent.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments, comments or questions?

Shall section 70, as amended, stand as part of the bill?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill, as amended, be reported?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported two bills with certain amendments.

15:40

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved third reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Warner: Briefly, it should be noted that this is the third successive year the recommendations from the election expenses commission has been ignored. Their recommendations were to set a salary that was commensurate with the responsibilities of the members and the time spent. For the third successive year, the government has chosen to ignore those recommendations.

I hope the commission will either be abandoned or empowered, one or the other.

Motion agreed to.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 169, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

On vote 301, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Chairman: We have in front of us the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has a statement. Can the minister -- and you are minister in this capacity -- indicate roughly how long his statement is, just so the members can allocate their time throughout the estimates?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have a very long opening statement, but I do not want to put my honourable friends to sleep; I do not think it is productive. I would rather have a lively discussion with the members and get their ideas with respect to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. My suggestion is that I dispense with the statement.

If members would like, I could send them a copy of it. I do not think it is productive to stand here and read it for half an hour. I would like to have the ideas of my colleagues with respect to the carrying out of my onerous duties as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Mr. Bernier: May I respond to that?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Bernier: I think it is pretty loose for the minister to stand up and say look, I have the statement here; I am not interested in reading it. We on this side of the House would like to know exactly what the minister has been doing, if anything, in the last year or year and a half with regard to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Obviously, the member needs some time to prepare his remarks or think about what he wants to say. I remember when I was a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition -- and I was there a long time -- the most lively discussions I had were with ministers who had the confidence to come in and discuss the issues without statements prepared by the bureaucrats.

That is why I elected to dispense with a statement, to get the benefit of the members' well thought-out ideas on the carrying out of my responsibility. Anybody who reads the newspapers is aware of the things we have been doing in our trade initiatives and our relationships with our sister provinces as well as internationally; so I have decided to throw myself on the mercy of this great chamber and get the benefit of the members' advice. It is open to them for discussion.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to accept the minister's challenge. He wants advice from us. Our advice is to tell us what he has been doing for the past year and a half. He has been on a trade mission to Japan and the Far East. I assume that would be as either the Premier or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, or likely a combination of both. He has been negotiating on the free trade, or freer trade, issue -- whatever terminology he wants to use to cover that -- with other ministers from across this country and with the Prime Minister of the land.

We would like to hear his comments on that. After those comments, we would like to participate. We would like to hear that now. He has asked for advice. That is my advice.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: No. The minister has given his statement in a very condensed version. The critic of the official opposition is next with his statement.

Mr. Foulds: I thought they had already made their statement.

Mr. Chairman: No.

Mr. Guindon: In introduction, I am pleased we finally have an opportunity to discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. This process gives us the opportunity to hold the government accountable for its expenditures and to compare its words to its actions.

The Liberals' approach to intergovernmental affairs has been notably misdirected and incohesive. In opposition, the Liberals spoke at great length about how well they would interact with the federal government, Washington and foreign governments. Now that the Liberals have had the chance to govern the province, it appears they are disastrously ineffectual in presenting Ontario's concerns to anyone. The minister may attempt to talk tough, but nobody listens; or, as with the softwood lumber issue, the minister does not do anything until it is too late. Consequently, the province has suffered.

I would like to focus on some of the problem areas that illustrate this government's lack of statesmanship. On the native rights issue, I believe the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will agree with me that the native people of our province deserve, at the very least, fair and equitable treatment. The previous Conservative government always treated native leaders as the rightful representatives of the native community. We recognized that these leaders were well-informed spokespersons whose contribution to government policy was greatly valued. However, the Liberal government has expressed a lack of respect for the opinions of Ontario's native leaders, which I believe jeopardizes all native people.

A number of complex issues vital to native rights will be discussed at the upcoming constitutional talks. The minister responsible for native affairs, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), has indicated to the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin that he is prepared to endorse constitutional changes but that the changes will be those he sees fitting. Gone are the days of consultation. The Attorney General and the minister would rather negotiate on behalf of Ontario's native people than consult with native leaders first.

When will the paternalism at the conference table stop? Are they going to continue with paternalism, judging for the native people what constitutes progress instead of allowing the native leaders, who are more than capable, to make the decision for themselves? Will the minister assure the House that Ontario's native leaders will first be able to approve the proposed constitutional changes and that he will then act accordingly?

15:50

International banking centres are another issue. The minister has failed to negotiate effectively a good deal for Ontario. The federal government announced its intention to designate Montreal and Vancouver as international banking centres months ago. Although such a plan would have a detrimental effect on Toronto, the minister has yet to influence the federal Minister of Finance to change the proposal.

Despite all the Liberal election promises to talk tough and stand up for Ontario when dealing with the federal government, they have not managed to gain equality for Toronto. The minister's inability to present clearly a convincing case for Toronto could jeopardize Toronto's competitive position as a banking centre and shift hundreds of jobs from Toronto to Montreal.

Can the minister assure Ontarians that their capital city will not be excluded from the international banking proposal? Will he tell the federal government that Ontario wants all three cities named or no cities named at all?

On child care, the traditional family unit is undergoing a series of changes. It is the responsibility of governments to adapt their policies and alter their programs to meet the demands of the new social realities. The high number of two-income families in addition to the many single-parent families has increased the demand for quality day care facilities. Unfortunately, many Ontario families must struggle to pay their day care costs while the government offers only nebulous promises.

For more than a year, we have waited for the government's white paper on child care and there still is nothing. The Premier mentioned child care briefly in his opening statement at the recent first ministers' conference, but he made no real policy announcements. The truth of the matter is that this government has proved itself incapable of negotiating quickly a financial agreement with the federal government that would ease the child care problems in Ontario.

Is the government negotiating an agreement to restructure the Canada assistance program to allow Ontario to utilize spaces in commercial day care centres? If so, what is the status of these negotiations? When can we expect to see the details of a policy proposal?

On the softwood lumber issue, not only has the minister failed to represent Ontario's interests adequately at the federal level, but he has mismanaged the province's international affairs as well. The Ontario government has been sitting on the sidelines during the entire softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States. At no time during the negotiations did any officials from the Ontario government travel to Washington to lobby on behalf of Ontario softwood lumber producers. Moreover, this provincial government agreed to the proposal made to the American producers that stumpage fees in the province be increased by 10 per cent.

Northern Ontario especially is reeling from the effects of the countervail duties imposed on Canadian softwood lumber, a duty this government did nothing to stop. The Premier of British Columbia travelled to Washington many times to speak on behalf of his province, but we in Ontario had no such representation, even though the softwood lumber industry is vital to the health of the whole province.

I am certain the government must know that Ontario's softwood lumber industry is primarily concentrated in the northern part of the province where unemployment is already high and where 21 communities exist primarily because of the lumber industry. Towns such as Elliot Lake, Terrace Bay and Nakina have all been rocked by recent layoffs, yet the provincial government has provided little assistance for the north.

If the Liberal government had stood up and talked tough for Ontario, the industry might not be in such bad shape today. In 1983-84, the previous Ontario government sent the Minister of Natural Resources to Washington personally to lobby members of Congress and the administration. In each instance, Ontario's case prevailed and proposed tariffs against our softwood were defeated. It appears this Liberal government prefers to sever ties with the US. By closing its Pennsylvania office, it lost the eyes and ears that kept us in touch with the mood in Washington.

When will the Liberal government develop a strategy that is more than mere rhetoric to fight American protectionism? When will the people see some effective leadership from the Premier, the kind of leadership that will defend Ontario jobs?

I notice in the estimates briefing book that the government has closed Ontario House in Brussels. It is interesting to note the gross discrepancies between the needs of the province and the policies of the Liberals. While Ontario should be taking advantage of opportunities to expand into foreign markets, the Liberals close down our foreign operations. The Premier has stated that for every $100 Europe spent on imports in 1985, only $1 came to Canada. Clearly, we should be developing this market, not giving up on it. Instead of creating opportunities for us to expand in Europe and to sell more Ontario goods and services, our government has packed up and come home. At a time when it is important to identify and advance Ontario's interests and relations with governments abroad, why did the government close Ontario House in Brussels?

Considering that Adrienne Clarkson resigned as Ontario's agent general in Paris weeks ago, why has the government taken so long to announce her replacement? Is it intending to shut down that operation as well?

With respect to property rights, the inclusion of property rights in the Constitution has long been an issue of interest to Ontario. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) has been an ardent advocate of property rights. We would be interested in learning the views of the Attorney General on property rights and how he sees them affecting zoning bylaws, environmental bylaws and restrictions on farm severances. At the upcoming constitutional talks, will the Premier be pressing for a provision for the protection of property in the Constitution?

There are a number of outstanding questions in Orders and Notices related to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. We hope the Premier will be good enough to answer those questions today. We are waiting for answers to questions such as, "Would the Premier provide a list of all individuals who are employed in his office as of October 24, 1986, including anyone who has been seconded from within the government?" That question came on October 27, 1986, from the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague). Also, "Would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs provide documentation indicating moneys spent obtaining poll results from polls not commissioned by the government; from whom these results were obtained; a copy of all information obtained?" That question was asked on November 13.

Those are just two of the many questions we hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will answer during these estimates. Given that the government constantly speaks of its no-walls, no-barriers administration, why is it not releasing information regarding expenditures of public moneys?

I have a series of questions related directly to the estimates briefing book. The ministry data are difficult to follow and difficult to compare with earlier years because of the reorganization of ministerial responsibilities. I would like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to tell me how many people are employed by his ministry, either on contract or otherwise, who are not classified as civil servants. Also, I would like to know the costs of their services in 1985-86. He has allocated a 60 per cent increase to the ministry administration program in 1986-87 but has given the intergovernmental relations expenditures only a 0.6 per cent increase. Is this indicative of the government's priorities, placing intergovernmental relations at the bottom?

Why did the minister choose to increase the hospitality fund by $125,000? I would like to be invited, if at all possible. What trips is the minister intending to take that could possibly warrant an increase in travel and related expenses of $82,500?

This concludes my statement. I look forward to hearing the minister's responses to the questions I have asked here today and to the outstanding questions in Orders and Notices.

16:00

Mr. Breaugh: I wanted to participate this afternoon because this has long been one of my little hobby-horses. The Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs has not exactly been on the front burner of anybody's agenda for as long as I have been a member, but it does emerge from time to time as critical. It usually emerges in the midst of some disaster. Usually plants are shut down and someone asks why we do not have somebody working in Washington to represent Ontario. The response usually is that it is an international matter and the federal government basically takes charge of those things.

What we are realizing repeatedly, though, is that the interests of the federal government do not always coincide with the interests of the province, and that demarcation causes us aggravation; it causes us loss of jobs and income. It does not do us much good to have our Premier at odds with the Prime Minister over softwood lumber, the auto pact or anything else. The unfortunate truth is that the damage is done before we are participants.

I know there is a process whereby the federal government chairs meetings of first ministers, and on a reasonably regular basis ministers of health or finance will gather somewhere. That is the process we know. The problem is that it is not an ongoing process. In an ongoing process, the best you can find is that staff people talk to one another regularly; they trade important documents and they have their staff arguments back and forth. In terms of political input, it is spasmodic at best.

I have long been an advocate of the idea -- and I am going to try it on the new Premier today to see whether he is any more receptive to it than previous Premiers have been -- that on matter of trade, international relationships and interprovincial relationships there ought to be three-party activity at work in the Legislative Assembly. Whether he wants to use a committee of the Legislature or whether he wants to strike a special committee to do it, I really do not care how it is done. I believe, for example, that when Ontario's softwood lumber industry is threatened, the response ought to be from all three political parties.

We have done that in a rather weird and wonderful way so far. The only mechanism for doing it is through question period and on occasion -- for example this afternoon -- when estimates are before us. Again, our ability to respond is spasmodic. It happens every now and then when there is a hot political issue that will dominate question period for a little while, or during the course of the estimates, which means once a year we get to talk about that.

If that is the way we are to proceed, the difficulty is that all we can do is complain about it when something goes wrong. The Premier will hear the complaints during question period, as he has in this fall session; bitter, acrimonious debates that he did not do his job, that he did not go to enough meetings or that he did not have enough representation at congressional hearings. If that is the way we are to proceed in the future, I am afraid that is all we will ever get.

I want something more. I would like the opportunity on an ongoing basis to define those issues before they happen, before the plants are closed or before the softwood lumber industry in this province is dead. I would like to have a committee of the Legislature working on that kind of problem. In our changing of the committee system a bit, it seems to me we have provided the occasion when some of that could happen. We have not said, as I believe we should, that relations with other provinces and other governments ought to be a matter of serious consideration on an ongoing basis at Queen's Park.

That is my first little pitch this afternoon, to try to get the Premier in a sense to upgrade the status of intergovernmental affairs; they deserve more time and energy on the parts of all members, who would need a vehicle for upgrading. That is the first point.

Second, I want to get a little bit more specific. Governments in this country are very often working at cross purposes. I will pick one example and enlarge on it a bit. In the auto industry, the federal government seems adamant that it will attract offshore producers into this market. In several parts of Ontario and Quebec, auto production facilities have been built in large measure with federal tax dollars and in some ways with Ontario tax dollars as well.

I know it is good to open up the plants, and I know it is a good political thing to toss the first shovel of dirt as they begin construction on a new facility. I know all of that. I know it will generate some jobs in small-town Ontario. But I also know that bringing in offshore producers under those terms and conditions puts a measure of unfairness into the auto industry here in Canada.

Why should General Motors grab all of its $2 billion worth of investment and put it into an Oshawa plant when its competition can get subsidized for its investment? GM is quite upset about that. It is so upset that I see it is actually beginning to listen to the federal government's line that it ought to take a subsidy for its Ste. Thérèse plant.

Not very long ago the General Motors executives with whom I have had a chance to talk in the past little while were adamantly opposed to that. They did not want government involvement. They certainly did not want that kind of investment going into their competition's pockets, which is precisely what has happened.

The problem I want to point out to members is that nobody has sat down as a group and said, "Here is what the federal government ought to do, and we ought to push it in that direction." The logical thing around auto production, for example, is very simple: If an offshore producer comes into Ontario under any condition, the first thing it has to do is to join the auto pact. An offshore producer who comes into Ontario -- into any part of Canada, as a matter of fact -- and sets up a production facility should do so under the same rules and guidelines as any other existing auto producer.

I do not believe that is unfair. I do not even believe it is a hardship. I believe those are just the rules of doing business in this country. It is as simple as that; and if those rules apply to Ford, Chrysler, General Motors and American Motors, they also ought to apply to Toyota, Honda and anybody else who comes in here.

I remain unconvinced, quite frankly, and this would not be a popular statement in many parts of Ontario. I believe it is not the smartest thing in the world to subsidize these offshore producers in Ontario. I am not at all convinced that in the long run this is going to do anybody any good. I am not convinced that the long-range application of federal and provincial subsidies in the private sector in the auto industry is going to do much more than provide us with a little more domestic competition.

I believe the offshore producers are here in Canada because the value of the dollar makes a big difference in putting up the production facility. More important, they are interested in long-term cost, and they know it will be cheaper to produce those vehicles here. They are not looking for access to the Canadian market, although that is a consideration. I think their prime consideration is access to an American market; that is exactly what they want.

I do not believe their plants are built in southern Ontario by accident. I do not believe they are all collected along Highway 401 by accident. They know what they are doing. They want to take a government subsidy and build a production facility here in Ontario. They want to compete with the existing auto makers and they want into the American market. Their game plan, I believe, is quite straightforward, and I have not heard any of them deny it for a moment. That is what they want to do.

To go back to my original point, what is our game plan? What is the game plan for Ontario and for the federal government of Canada? I do not know that there is a game plan. I know that when somebody comes knocking at your door looking for money, there is a response. It is generally seen to be a good thing to put up an auto plant in a small town, and there is a response to that. But is there a long-term thought in mind about whether this is good or bad in the long run? Is there a plan in mind?

My concern here is that I know the auto producers reasonably well. I know they have a plan in mind. They know exactly what they want. If they can get a subsidy from the government, federally or provincially, that is okay too, but that is not the critical decision point; that is not what makes the difference to them. The federal government is very open in its courtship of offshore producers and very open with the chequebook as well, but I do not believe that is their critical consideration.

Their game plan is somewhat different. They know exactly where they want to be. They know exactly why they want to be there. They know exactly which market they want to get into. If you had said in this country 10 years ago that these producers would be taking 30 per cent of our domestic market, everybody would have laughed you off the block: "Nobody wants those funny-looking little cars. People want nice big shiny things with tail fins on them." That was the thought in the industry. Now it is a serious competitive problem.

The strange thing, and the one that confuses me no end, is why the government of Canada and the government of Ontario want to subsidize this. I do not understand that. I would be more comfortable with that notion if it were part of an economic strategy, if we as governments in this country knew what we were going to do, what we wanted to do and decided this subsidization was one tool to get to a longer goal. That is not the case.

16:10

Somehow, issues such as that have to be picked up. For example, I do not know why we have trade offices around the world, certainly all through the United States, but we do not have an office in Washington. That confuses me somewhat. I have had an opportunity, as many members have from time to time, to visit our agents general, trade offices or whatever name they are going under these days.

It is interesting to visit those offices. In some places they are what we might call almost diplomatic offices; they are there to represent Ontario. When we ask what they do, they do what diplomats do: they attend receptions, seminars and conferences, explain what Ontario is and try to attract new industry. In other places, they are sales offices; they are selling Ontario products in different markets in the US.

It seems a little backward to have offices throughout the US but no office in Washington, where all the action takes place in legislative terms. On the auto pact, softwood lumber and a number of other issues that are coming up, it seems only logical to have representation in Washington.

I know there may be a bit of an argument from the federal government which says, "We represent Canada abroad." However, Quebec has repeatedly entered into that argument with the federal government and has said: "Well, never mind that. You are quite free to represent Canada abroad, but Quebec also has interests that need to be met. We want our own staff there. We want our own representation, for example, when there are congressional hearings or parliamentary hearings under way anywhere in the world." Quebec wants to be represented, and I quite agree with that.

I do not believe the national interest always runs directly concurrent with Ontario's interest. There will always be times when our interests are somewhat different from the federal interests. I know we will get into arguments with the federal government over this, and that is fine by me. I have no problem with that. I would be the last one in here, for example, to say just because Brian Mulroney wants to enter into free trade with the US, that is what we should do and his should be the only voice heard at the American Congress, or that our Prime Minister has talked to their President and the two of them apparently want a free trade agreement.

I visited the Congress recently, and I assure members I have not met a congressman who wants free trade. All of them are talking about their plant closures and their constituents; they want much tougher trade agreements. They are not so sure Canada should get any kind of preferred status in this deal either. There are a number who think the Canadian industrial sector is just as much an enemy of their local economy as are the Japanese, the Swedes, the West Germans or anybody else. They are generally friendlier to Canadians, but when it comes to whose plant closes down, there is not a doubt in their minds it should not be theirs.

We should review that process as well. We need to have some representation in Washington, London and probably in the European Community countries. Before we do that, we will have to clarify what these offices are. Are they basically offices from which a sales pitch is made? Are they offices the government of Ontario uses to see that when a tariff is being discussed in the American Congress, our representative is there, is aware of what is being proposed, can perhaps have some kind of influence on how the proposals are put together and can see that the Ontario position is made clear to the Congress of the US or whatever government body is making that decision? Some rethinking of the nature of the offices and some redistribution is required.

I would not be an advocate of the position, for example, that we will never again sell anything to Pennsylvania because we closed an office in Philadelphia. I have not been to that office, but I have been to others where it was clear the staff did not have much of an idea of why they were there. There was an operation suitable for attending cocktail parties and that was about the end of it.

I have also been to trade offices where the staff had something very specific in mind and went to work. One that comes to mind is the one in Atlanta, which we went to see last year. The staff working in that office had a very clear mandate. They knew what they wanted to do and they were working very hard to promote Ontario industry and the relocation of some industries out of the southern part of the US into Ontario. They knew how to do that, they knew where to be, they had a good idea of the trade shows they should be in attendance at and there was a pretty good flow of information back and forth.

My personal experience has been in two offices: one in San Francisco, where they seemed not to be aware at all why they were there, and one in Atlanta, where they seemed to have a very good idea of what it was all about and what their purpose in life was.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We closed down the San Francisco office.

Mr. Breaugh: I am aware the San Francisco office was closed down. That was right after I left. I am not sure anybody in San Francisco has noticed, however.

Let me move on to a couple of other areas where I am making the argument that we ought to have a better vehicle for discussing this stuff.

The Constitution of Canada is under review in a number of ways. This House does not have much of a vehicle even to talk about that. That Constitution affects the people of Ontario every bit as much as any other province. We do not even have a vehicle for discussion. Again, we would have to go back to question period stuff or, occasionally, during the estimates. There is no regularly scheduled vehicle to do that.

For some time now, there has been a report from the standing committee on the Ombudsman, and I recall the late Jim Renwick had motions before that committee and this House to discuss international affairs. There would be some, I suppose, who would say this is a provincial Legislature and we should not talk about Afghanistan or things that are happening in Africa or in Central America.

As one member of the assembly, I believe this may not be a full-time item for us, but I believe there ought to be a way whereby we can properly put in front of this Legislature, from time to time, matters that may not have anything at all to do with this jurisdiction; they may have to do with atrocities that are happening somewhere else in the world. The truth is that we have people in this province from all over the world. They are alarmed by actions that are taking place elsewhere in the world. They want us to talk about these issues. They want us to have a vehicle whereby we can discuss a variety of things. That happens from time to time. Various members put forward resolutions and private members' bills, or we go off to one of our committees and try to raise something there, but it seems to me it is not that difficult to think through a mechanism whereby we can voice the opinion of our constituents in many cases about an international matter and we should work to find a method to do that.

One simple way would be to adopt recommendations from the Ombudsman's committee. It seems to me that would be a vehicle to do that, and from time to time we could set aside some of our legislative program and deal with something on which I am sure somebody would say, "That is none of your business." In a sense I accept that, but I also want other people to accept that I do have some thoughts about what happens to Soviet Jews. I do not have very many Jewish people in my constituency and, to my knowledge, I do not have any Soviet Jews in my constituency, but there are a lot of us who want to express an opinion on that.

We would like to do little things from time to time that might actually free somebody, that might actually make a little change in the way the world goes about its business. If governments in Afghanistan, Nicaragua or wherever got a little letter from us once in a while they might understand there is an awareness of international issues even in this provincial Legislature. All I want is some mechanism to try to deal with those.

Let me move on to one other area that disturbs me somewhat. From the Department of External Affairs, I have a blue volume on Canada's international relations. It is the response of the government of Canada to the report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. I looked through it the other day. It is not exactly light reading, but it brought to mind another slippage within our system.

The province of Ontario and this Legislature do not have much of a relationship with the House of Commons or the Senate. Even within our own country we seem not to have the linkages. Once in a while, one of our committees will go and visit the House of Commons. As an example, we went to see how they set up their process to televise the proceedings, how it was working, how they review it, what kind of equipment they had and what kind of guidelines they had for it. But that is a rare occasion. We do not have anything whereby once a year we all go down and find out what is happening in Ottawa. There is no mechanism for things to happen back and forth, either between the House of Commons and the Senate and this Legislature or either of those bodies. It seems to me that is something we ought to consider.

It is apparent to me, as one member, that a number of international issues have a direct impact on Ontario. Small towns in the northern part of this province will disappear because of what our federal government has done in negotiations in Washington. There may be those who would want to go to those small towns and say: "But it is not our business. The federal government was supposed to do that, and it did not do its job." That is no comfort. That is not even a response to people who have had their entire livelihood removed. It is surely no response when a whole town will disappear because tariffs are changed.

16:20

We have to set in place in a tangible way some mechanisms that will allow us to keep track of what the federal government is doing. We have to meet with it on a rather regular basis. We have to be aware of what it is doing. It is not as if we are in isolation here. We now have computers in our offices, which in an indirect way can get information out of the federal government. We need to embellish those systems a bit more. We have research people around here who give us studies on various position papers put forward by the federal government. We do have some linkages. I want them in a more visible and more accurate way.

In the end, we may wind up with what the previous government did. Every once in a while, when it was deemed appropriate that the Premier ought to travel abroad because it was good for his image as a dignified person travelling about the world, some important conference would be found somewhere and away he would go. The purpose of the exercise was news coverage: "Here is the international side of Bill Davis. Here is what a splendid diplomat he really is." He was all those things. He could shake hands with the best of them, he was very good at dinner speeches and all that, and so is the present Premier.

To be a little crass about it, the purpose of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs was to embellish the role of Premier from time to time as the government saw fit. There was not much interest in establishing an ongoing role for the Legislature; no such vehicle ever existed. Every once in a while, something happened that caused disruption in our own economy, and the government was always quite happy to point its finger at Ottawa and blame Trudeau or whoever was in office at the time.

I am making the argument that this is not good enough any more. I believe Ontario has a small role to play in international affairs, but a role to play none the less. It may turn out to be a defensive role. It may turn out that the biggest single thing this ministry does is to be aware of what is happening in Washington, London, the European Community countries and so on. That would be a gigantic step forward, it seems to me, because it is true now that we have a fuzzy awareness. We are not active participants in trade talks in Washington. It would be folly to try to portray us as that. We are not. At the best, we respond after some decision has been made. I want some vehicle that will allow members of this assembly to do that.

To go back to the trade offices as an example, I will bet there is not a member in here, including the Premier, who can tell us whether the trade offices are all doing a good job. None of us has ever seen them. They are thousands of miles away from Ontario. We have a rough idea on paper, but it is a rough idea indeed, enclosed in the briefing books, of what they cost and what they are doing. However, not one member of this assembly has a good idea of what our trade office in Paris or the agent general in London is doing these days, because there is no way to get that kind of information. It is not possible. It is not like many other things.

We can probably travel Highway 401 and tell whether the Ministry of Transportation and Communications is keeping that in good shape, but we cannot say whether the trade offices are a good or bad idea or whether they are working well or not at all, because there is no clear reference point. Members cannot report to the assembly that they know what is happening in a trade office somewhere; they have never been there.

Mr. Wiseman: Ask for a report.

Mr. Breaugh: Somebody is burbling over here about asking for a report. That is my point exactly. I do not want a report from anybody. I want a way I can find out what is going on.

The previous government was wonderful at this: One could ask it about any problem in the world, and it would generate 600 pages of paper and put it on one's desk. It told one nothing. It was good for the pulp and paper industry, I am sure, but that is not what I want. I do not want a report. I want a vehicle whereby we can find out.

Mr. Wiseman: We should send a select committee around to all of them.

Mr. Breaugh: It is unfortunate the member is here today. He is such an obnoxious person when he is here, I am glad it is a rare occurrence.

Mr. Wiseman: Let us have a select committee.

Mr. Breaugh: The member wants a select committee. I am prepared to buy him a bus ticket out of town. I do not want a select committee either. What I want is the opportunity for the members of the assembly to know what is expected of our trade offices through a mechanism that tells us how active they are and what things they are into. For example, one thing that intrigues me is that because the nature of their work is somewhat general, there does not appear to be a good way to measure whether they are effective.

I recall we had a good discussion about this in Atlanta. We basically asked them to take us through the process: "When you identify a lead for a market for a Canadian product, how do you follow it up?" They had a good system of following it through. The only thing that was missing was an examination of whether the process was really worth while, a good way to evaluate it. They admitted there was no formal process for doing that. They thought it was good. They had good year-end statistics. They kept pretty accurate records of where they went, what they did and whom they met with. There is a need to evaluate that process.

Let me give a couple of other areas that will make the case that we ought to be more active in this regard.

For many of us, our native people have been one of the tragedies of this country for a number of years. Ontario is less of a player than is the federal government, but none the less it is a player. This is another area where we have tried to find a way with the agenda at Queen's Park to talk about those issues, and there is no formal way to do it. You are left trying to find a good question for question period or on occasion during somebody's estimates, where it is rather free-ranging and you can do it. We do not consider native people to be on our agenda; they are kind of off the map.

In defence of what we are doing, I do not believe it is totally bad. This government has some quite good intentions. For example, in our television broadcasting, the first use of our television system comes from some of our native people. They want to use the television system to do broadcasting in their own languages to the far northwestern part of the province. We were happy to accommodate them, as it was not going to cost us any money. There ought to be more occasions when the rights and needs of our native people and others in our community get a response from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in a direct way.

In all these aspects, I am saying that much of what we do now is a response or an initiative by more than one level of government. We as a Legislative Assembly have prepared ourselves to handle that. If you stop to think about it, rarely is a project built or a building put up these days that is not done by more than one level of government. Almost all major projects and initiatives, whether they are health and welfare programs, education programs or medical programs and things of that nature, are done jointly. They are financed and controlled jointly by different levels of government.

We do not set up shop to deal with it on that basis, and I believe a case can be made to have a Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs that is far more active than it has been in the past. There is an urgent need for us to get our act together in some respects for things such as softwood lumber and the auto pact, two examples that come quickly to mind. We should never again get caught as we did on the softwood lumber issue. We should learn from that lesson that sometimes the federal government has a different agenda from ours. That is fair and reasonable, but it is our responsibility to see those things do not happen in quite that way. It is our responsibility to be aware that the government in Washington can make simple tariff adjustments that seem quite reasonable to it but have dramatic effects on our own economy. We need to understand that.

We need to understand that if we are to be successful at developing the economy of this province, it will have to be as part of a larger plan. It would be silly for Ontario to have an industrial economic development strategy that was completely at odds with and spent most of its time, energy and money working against a strategy that was put in place by one of the other provinces or by the federal government. We need to negotiate that. We need to have that kind of strategy.

In many respects, I am arguing that the assembly needs to pay more attention to this ministry and that the Premier needs to do a few things that will embellish it. I want to give him some credit because he has done some things the previous government did not do. On one or two occasions, he has invited opposition members to accompany him as he travels about the world. That is fine by me, but that is not going to do very much to resolve larger problems.

I want him to take the next step. I want the assembly itself here at Queen's Park to have more occasions when these matters can be debated. I want the members here to have a greater role in what happens at the first ministers' conferences. We do not want to sit at the table; we do not want to be that kind of participant. But we want a vehicle whereby he can test out, from all the parties here at Queen's Park, what Ontario's position should be. We can do that right here; we do not have to go anywhere to do that. There will be occasions when it will be wise to have a delegation from all three parties -- dominated, as always, by the government party -- to represent the province at different events.

16:30

I know that some part of the Premier's agenda has been to try to expand that a little, and I congratulate him for that. However, I am saying that more day-to-day work needs to be done and that a vehicle needs to be found whereby the members of this assembly can voice their opinions on international trade matters, on human rights issues, on matters that have great concern to our native people and that are of concern to our economy as a whole or to our economy specifically.

I am afraid our response of setting up select committees to deal with problems has always been after the fact and has not been as productive as I would like it to be. I sat through select committees on a variety of matters. Sometimes they seem to be appropriate vehicles and at other times they are not workable; they just do not solve problems. For the most part they do not solve problems, because they do not come into being until after the problem has occurred.

Therefore, I am asking this afternoon that the Premier give some consideration to reviewing the role of this ministry and to finding, in as many ways as he can, techniques whereby ordinary members of the assembly can at least voice their opinions on these matters and perhaps even be productive in attempting to see that Ontario, in its relationships with other levels of government here and abroad, can be more productive and more positive. If we get that one simple message across this afternoon, we will have done something worth while.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I should take the opportunity to respond to some of the points raised by my colleagues and to thank them for their constructive suggestions. Perhaps we can discuss some of them more in detail. I am intrigued by some of the ideas, and I assure members I am looking for constructive ideas for involving my colleagues in some of the very onerous decisions I have to make.

With respect to the concerns expressed in the speech by the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon), one was the question of native rights. His feeling was that we are not doing enough, I guess, or something of that nature. I think he has missed the tone of what is happening in the province. This is an issue for which, as the member knows, I do not have direct carriage. The Attorney General is the minister responsible for native affairs. I am very deeply interested in it and I have spent a considerable amount of time on it, not just as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs but as Premier as well. As the member knows, the first offer ever made in terms of land claims was made by this government, a subject that was talked about for a very long time.

I do not want to stand here and be forced into a position where I sound self-congratulatory, but I will tell the member that the native people I have talked to -- and I have talked to many of them -- sense a completely different atmosphere from just a year and a half ago. We are determined to make progress. We have had considerable discussion about the first ministers' conference that is coming up in April, I believe, with respect to native rights. The member knows our view on self-government. It is an issue we intend to pursue. I cannot speak with certainty about how the other provinces will view this.

Let me flip over to my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) in that regard. He has a constructive idea. Perhaps on that issue we should have a debate ahead of time and get the views of the members of the Legislature and of the various parties. I agree with my colleague from Oshawa that a number of these issues can be handled on a nonpartisan basis. When I see those committees or some institutions working in which people are stretching to make a genuine contribution as opposed to just scoring political points, he knows the difference; he and I have been here long enough to know the difference between those ways an institution can function.

I view it as very constructive, just as I viewed it as extremely constructive when we were accompanied to the Far East by the leader of the New Democratic Party, by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) and by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) as well as by the leader of the Ontario Federation of Labour. I believed very strongly that the strongest statement I could make about the political stability of this province and of this country was to include my colleagues. I did not tell them what to say. We did not orchestrate their time. They distinguished themselves as individuals and were extremely helpful in putting over the face of Ontario. I was proud to introduce them to the people I was meeting on that occasion. I will speak more about that later.

My colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) tells me the former minister, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), was extremely helpful to him on the trip to Bahrain. She had been there before and knew the situation and the players. It was largely her dream and a lot of her ideas. From everything I hear, it was an extremely constructive situation.

I have suggested to my colleagues that they should include their critics. Let me be very frank about it. Some critics are very constructive and assist in those matters, and some are not. I cannot tell critics how to behave in a situation such as that. Some take advantage of the opportunity -- let me be frank -- to score cheap points; other people take a very constructive view.

We have attempted to be generous in all respects. I say to my friend the member for Cornwall -- and he will not remember this, but I do -- we try very hard to treat the members of the opposition very differently from the way I was treated when I was a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I do not claim to be partisan about that but I think it is a different situation. I remember the situation in opposition extremely well.

Let members look at all the rules of this House. They will see how they have changed so dramatically to favour the private member and indeed the opposition. It is dramatically different from what it was even two years ago around here. I do not look for credit but at the same time I think members should be very cognizant of the changes that have been wrought in this place in the past couple of years.

Mr. Wiseman: Barred from meetings and everything. Invited to the meeting and then barred from it. That is not open government and you know it. I phoned your office about it.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend the member for Lanark is getting testy.

Mr. Wiseman: I phoned your office about how open you and your ministers are. Invited to a meeting and then told you are not welcome.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know what my honourable friend is referring to. If he is not invited to some meeting --

Mr. Wiseman: Your Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). I phoned your office about it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no idea about the honourable member being invited to a meeting.

Let me go on to the second point with respect to the international banking centres. I am glad the Conservative position is clearly against what the federal government has done. We have conveyed our view to the federal government in very clear and unequivocal terms.

It is not my style of interprovincial and federal-provincial relationships to scream, hoot and yell. I believe there is a better atmosphere in this country at present in spite of the differences. Looking back not too far in history, I refer my friend to the relationship between Quebec and Ontario and to that between Ontario and the west today. Let him compare that to not too many years ago. I remember those days extremely well. It is something I value extremely highly. I have put a great deal of personal effort into that because I believe in Ontario playing a constructive role in Confederation. We have to use the advantage we have in a constructive way, not a destructive way. I believe in being co-operative on a nonpartisan basis with the government of the day at whatever level.

I look back to the first time I attended a Premiers' conference, as someone recently elected, knowing virtually nothing. Five different political parties were represented. I was welcomed in with open arms, as anyone in my position would be, just as we have welcomed in, now that I am almost a senior guy in terms of longevity in this business, the new people who have been brought in. Partisanship does not come into it among the provinces at that level. We are all struggling for the things we have in common, given that we do have natural differences.

With respect to the question of international banking centres, it was an afterthought in the federal budget. There was a line in the budget saying, "We are going to have Montreal and Vancouver as international financial centres." The Ottawa colleagues of members opposite did it, not mine. I do not want to overstate this, but it was the most superficial, silly thing I had ever heard in my life. Where that came out of nobody knew. It came out of the blue. I am sure all my friends opposite are offended about that. We have conveyed that view to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and everyone else concerned about that.

As the member said in his statement, it is lunacy to do that to Montreal and Vancouver and not include Toronto. Either treat them all the same or not at all. Can he tell me what possesses those people in Ottawa to make some of the decisions they make? I do not want to get dragged into being overcritical, but sometimes I worry about the judgement I see displayed by some people. There is a perfect example of that.

16:40

I am asking the member to help me out. I would like him, as the critic for his party, to convey the official view of his party to Mr. Mulroney and tell him how wrongheaded it is. We are struggling very hard in this province to keep Ontario and Toronto in the forefront of the changes in the financial industry to keep it as a world-class financial and banking centre and we need his help in that regard. They all know our views on the subject. They know the views of every thoughtful person in this province. If they are going to persist -- and Lord knows why they are going to persist; one can only interpret that they have some political considerations they are not going to share with the member or myself; I do not know -- I am hopeful my friends opposite will join me in putting that strong point to Ottawa.

The next point the member made was on quality day care. Again, that is not my responsibility, but it was not just mentioned in the opening statement. There was a very major amount of work put into that. It was the second day of the federal-provincial conference when Ontario put forward its new approach. I am sure my friend opposite understands day care issues. He will realize the things I announced were indeed ground-breaking. They were a major new step forward in child care policy in this province with respect to direct grants and other matters.

We also believe the ideal way to handle this situation is on a federal-provincial cost-shared basis. At present, we operate under the Canada Assistance Plan Act. A meeting of ministers is scheduled for January 20. It is my hope, and I suggested to the Prime Minister -- because my preference always is to organize these things on an interprovincial, federal-provincial basis -- that the ministers of finance should have been there as well as the ministers responsible for women's issues and for community and social services, to develop a consensus on the cost-sharing because it is a financial issue. There is no question about that. It is not just a social service issue. Again, if the member can use his good offices to persuade his federal colleagues to take the view that I gather he shares with us, I will be delighted in that regard.

His fourth point was with respect to softwood. I could speak at great length about the softwood issue. Going back some considerable length of time -- I am not sure how much my colleagues want to hear about that -- it is an issue I have been very close to. Suffice it to say that when one looks back some period of time, we thought we had an agreement between the provinces and with the federal government to resist what had happened in the US and not to compromise. It came as a great surprise to us when Pat Carney, the minister, came out of Washington agreeing, with no prior consultation, to a 10 per cent compromise on that issue. We have discussed it in the House and we have reluctantly agreed to go along with it, even though it was against our very best advice at the time.

Mr. Rae: The Premier knew a deal was coming.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No, we did not. The member is wrong. Nobody knew that compromise suggestion of Pat Carney's was coming along.

Mr. Pope: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) says he did.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know the issue fairly well. My friend the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) thinks that by hooting, hollering and screaming he singlehandedly saved the industry. I have heard him so many times in this House; he thinks he singlehandedly saved the industry in 1983.

Mr. Pope: I did not say that at all. When did I say it? Quote Hansard where I said that.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He does. He gives that impression. I have talked to the industry at great length about this issue and I can tell the member that is not the industry's view of the situation, but I do not expect the member to share that view at the moment.

Then we ended up, as the member knows, with the preliminary determination and then a situation which for some reason, coincidence and time, ended up in Vancouver to be a question of how the issue should be handled. Again, Miss Carney thought she had a deal with Mr. Baldrige of the US for a 15 per cent termination -- not a suspension agreement but a termination agreement that the suit would be withdrawn.

We expressed our views at the time that it was a mistake and that we should fight the matter in the courts, through the Court of International Trade in New York and through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and use every single legal remedy we have. Agreeing to a suspension or termination agreement was virtually an admission of guilt and jeopardized our position.

We argued that position as strongly as we could. The Prime Minister, Miss Carney and all the other provinces that were involved in the situation were there. The members know the results of that. We were assured that Miss Carney had a deal -- that was a month or so ago or whenever it was -- and to this day there is still no deal.

There are discussions going on back and forth between the US and Canada. There is some question whether Mr. Baldrige can deliver the US industry. There is some question whether the provinces would accept an export tax, one of the federal government's suggestions, particularly in view of the historic disfavour the export tax has had, especially with the producing provinces in the west.

To say it has been mishandled is an understatement. I do not think there is one analyst looking at the way the Ottawa government has handled this situation who says it has handled it with distinction.

Mr. Pope: Or that Ontario did.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The members opposite can blame me for it, and I am sure they will, because they think that is their job. I do not agree with my honourable friends. Objective observers, and I discount my friends opposite in that regard, do not share the view they have in this situation. I expect my friend the member for Cochrane South to take the view he has, but it is not what I consider the objective view.

There we are. Who knows what will happen? We have filed in the US. We have counsel in the US for the verification process. We think the thing should be fought through, because we think it sets a very unfortunate precedent that virtually gives up resource pricing, resource allocations and resource policy to the US, and the precedent is extremely disturbing.

Members will recall it was the federal government that got involved in the so-called free trade discussions. We have been whacked with a number of irritants since that time; the list seems almost endless.

I suggested to my colleagues that we develop a national strategy on taking our point to the US. I have been there, as members know, and my colleagues have been there. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has been there on many occasions discussing acid rain policy and other things. We will continue to do that as forcefully and as well as we possibly can, given the importance of the relationship to Canada and particularly to this province, but we are not primarily charged with the responsibility for foreign policy. I will get to the point of my friend the member for Oshawa in a minute with respect to an office in Washington.

My friend the member for Cornwall is upset that we closed the Philadelphia office. I assume he is also upset that we closed the San Francisco and Brussels offices. On looking at the details, it was our view that it was not paying and that we should put our resources in other areas. As a result, we have put our resources into the Asia-Pacific area. As members know, we have put our resources into an Ontario House in Tokyo, into Korea and into China.

I should tell my honourable friend that none of those offices is now the responsibility of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We used to have a mixed jurisdiction. I believe Intergovernmental Affairs had Brussels and Paris, and all the rest were under the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, which was rather bizarre. I have moved them all over to MITT to get one standard of measurement and accountability. That goes to the point made by the member for Oshawa, and he is quite right: There was virtually no accountability in the system. It appeared agents general were appointed for life. Nobody knew whom they talked to, whom they accounted to or by what standards. We are bringing in a new rigour of determination of what I expect out of those offices, and I will talk about that later. We now have four Ontario Houses; the rest are trade offices, and they have a number of responsibilities.

My friend has a number of questions about our hospitality budgets. The hospitality budget in 1982-83 was $486,000; in 1983-84 it was $413,000; in 1984-85 it was $354,000, and in 1985-86 it was $359,000. My friend will be delighted we are spending less than the previous government used to spend on hospitality.

He is concerned that we budget $120,000 for trips. So far this year, about $8,000 has been drawn on that, and it really is not travelling. As he knows, travelling is not my favourite thing. I travel because I have to, not because I particularly like it. It is not the same for all my friends here in this House. If the member has any other specific questions or things he is worried about -- I did not get them all -- we will try to provide for him the information on budgets and things such as that today or tomorrow. Was there anything else the member wanted to know?

16:50

Let me talk to my friend the member for Oshawa about the idea of a Washington office. It is not a new idea. It is one that was recommended by the standing committee on finance and economic affairs of this House. That was a new committee put together by the new government to try to get input on some pretty tough issues.

It is the member's view that we should take our message on softwood and the auto pact to Washington more effectively. In general terms, I do not disagree with him. There are results every time we go.

It is a very big place. The focus of responsibility in the US is very different from the focus here. It is tougher to get to the centres of power, and the way you take your message is tougher, but I believe it is something to which we have to dispatch the entire country, all the Premiers, members of Parliament and particularly the Prime Minister. He has to take advantage of his very good personal relationship with the President to make sure Canadian interests are protected. I am very worried about what is happening in the US at the moment. I cannot overstate my worry, because I regard what is happening as extremely serious.

I have discussed with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and others the idea of putting an office in Washington. At the moment, it is still being talked about. The federal government is very much against the idea. It believes it would be encroaching on its territory, it would mix up the messages and a lot of other things. It would open the floodgates. Quebec does and does not have an office. It has a tourism office there through which it does some diplomatic things, but it has a person coming from New York on a daily basis. Really, they do not, but really, they do, is the answer to the question.

Frankly, I would rather work this out with Ottawa, if possible. I am not interested in creating diplomatic incidents, if I can avoid it. We are discussing this with the Department of External Affairs; I do not know how it will turn out. We are beefing up our New York office as well as our Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs here to better monitor what is going on in Washington. In addition, we are using lawyers and other people there to do things.

I do not want to overstate our ability to take our message into Washington. I believe it is best worked out in conjunction with the embassy, if at all possible. I do not want to get into a competitive situation with the embassy. I would rather it was complementary in every respect. I appreciate my friend's advice on that matter. I cannot tell him for sure how it is going to turn out.

My friend talks about an ongoing process for more involvement in policymaking or advice to the government. I have told him my view on including members of the Legislature in some of our trade missions. That is my view, because I value this. I say frankly that some of the members opposite were very constructive, and we should have the benefit of their advice. There is a varying quality of participation, just as in everything else.

I am open to suggestions the member has about ideas to involve members more in the policy discussions, perhaps on the Constitution matter that will be coming up in the not-too-distant future. We should have a debate in the House, because I think it is good point. At this point, the situation is rather amorphous. Quebec's proposals are on the table.

By the way, we have excluded all other issues; so the issue of property rights that my friend the member for Cornwall raised will not be discussed in the first round. Other issues such as Senate reform, proportional representation and other things that may or may not be subjects for future constitutional discussions will probably not be discussed at this round. The reason is to try to confine -- this is the wish of most of the provinces and the federal government -- the discussion to the five or six points raised by Quebec and see whether a consensus can be developed.

At this point, the discussions are rather preliminary, still rather touchy-feely. Informal discussions are still going on. Quebec does not want to go ahead into the formal round unless there is some reasonable likelihood of success; neither does the federal government, and I accept that.

I also accept with humility the mantle I have inherited from great nation builders, people such as Bill Davis, John Robarts and Leslie Frost. I believe Ontario has to play a constructive role in that regard. I believe it is in the national interest to have Quebec as part of our Constitution. I am one of those who also believes we have a relatively limited window of opportunity in this regard; so I am hoping my colleagues in all the other provinces -- and under the current system everybody has a say -- can be persuaded to bring this matter along as quickly as possible.

If members talk to my colleagues in Quebec and elsewhere, they will see we have been constructive and continue to be. I will keep in mind the advice from my friend the member for Oshawa with respect to a debate in this House involving my colleagues. I do not regard this at all as a partisan issue; I hope it does not become a partisan issue. I regard it as an issue calling for the best advice of all members of this House working together, and I appreciate the member's advice in that regard.

My friend the member for Oshawa also talked about governments working at cross purposes -- if I am misinterpreting some of his points, let him please help me out -- with regard to auto plants, General Motors and other things with respect to subsidies. He expressed his discomfort level with subsidies to foreign plants. I understand what the honourable member is saying. He prefers that we automatically become members of the auto pact. One looks particularly at the Ste. Théresè situation today and at the potential, if that is improperly framed, to attack the auto pact, which in my view is the single most important piece of paper to this province and to this country. It must be protected. Members can see that I have expended a great deal of effort on this issue, and I hope the federal government can be persuaded not to touch that in any regard.

I agree with the member that we should try to keep the co-operation with the federal government as best we can. Frankly, it varies from day to day and with people's political agendas. My view is to be co-operative, if possible. Particularly at the bureaucratic and ministerial levels, there are many meetings going on. There is hardly a day around here that some minister is not away at an interprovincial meeting of some type or other. They seem to be almost endless.

We now have annual federal-provincial conferences. We also meet with the Prime Minister once every three months or so on trade issues. We try to talk to each other. It is a large country and rather complicated, and the more we talk to each other, the better. How that should involve MPPs is an interesting question. I assure members that I value constructive suggestions in this regard. I am open to suggestions on how we can involve the members and get them up to date on these issues beyond our own borders, to give the ministers advice in this regard.

My friend from Oshawa suggested perhaps more federal-provincial meetings. I remember we had some of those when I was on the standing committee on public accounts. We tried that and I learned some things from those meetings. I do not travel as much as some of my friends in this House, and I never have, but I am one of those who thinks that if we expand our horizons and get some ideas about what is happening in the world, we will probably be better legislators. I am not against that in any regard.

I talked about the trade offices, how we have quite a number and how we are moving our thrust into Korea. We are sharing the embassy space in Korea. Our trade officer happens to be a very fine young man, Ray McCague, the son of the member for Dufferin-Simcoe. He is in Korea because we see that as a very dynamic economy in the world and we can have great potential there. We are also doing major things in China.

I am pleased to tell members we recorded a rare status on our trip to the Far East when we were accorded official status by all three countries we were in. We saw the Prime Ministers of those countries. That is a rare privilege accorded to a province. It regularly happens to heads of state, obviously something I am not. I think it shows the measure of respect in which this province is held. It lauds the great importance we have economically and our relative size in the Confederation.

17:00

We are told we had some of the most successful investment seminars and most successful events with senior ministers ever held in Tokyo. Everyone is included in that. I am told by the business people who were with us, who are probably more objective judges than us, that it was one of the more successful trade missions they had ever been on. We specifically signed a number of contracts. Hundreds of millions in money is actually flowing, some of it as a direct result of that. I think it was a productive exercise.

It is no secret that this government regards the Pacific Rim and the emerging world as the areas of greatest concentration for the future. That is why we are doing what we are doing. We are pulling finite resources out of Brussels, Philadelphia, San Francisco and other places and putting them into the fastest-growing areas of the world. We are trying to develop those trading relationships to the benefit of all people in the province. We are doing well. We are also doing cultural exchanges, academic exchanges and athletic exchanges; so it is not just a straight commercial relationship.

My friend the member for Oshawa asked how we judge the worth of these offices. It is a very legitimate question. I have asked myself the very same question. We have four Ontario Houses with an upgraded status. They have more diplomatic status, whatever that means. They are not exactly diplomats -- in other words, they have to pay their parking tickets -- but on the other hand they have more status in terms of access to government and things such as that.

The other ones are trade offices. I tell them, "I am in favour of all these things," but basically they are commercial operations to arrange trade back and forth, as well as investment. Our Hong Kong office, for example, is not doing as much in trade as it is in attracting investment to the province. Each has a little different complexion, depending on the country it is in and the opportunities that are there.

I am not sure I can persuade my colleague about their viability, but we can go into considerable detail about the operations, the number of contacts they have had and the number of things approved. If he is interested, I will be very happy to arrange briefings and he may or may not be persuaded. To persuade him, perhaps I will have to send him on a trip to visit them. I know he would be persuaded in that regard.

My friend raised another interesting question that has been an ongoing discussion: our involvement as a Legislature in international issues, be it Nicaragua, South Africa or whatever. I remember discussions at various times as to whether the Ombudsman should have power in that regard. I do not have a strong view on it one way or the other. It seems to me it is a question of balance, a question of judgement along the way. I am open to advice on the question. When we stand up on the question of South Africa, for example, that is entirely within our rights. The member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) was very interested in the Nicaraguan situation. I talked to him about it. To the best of my ability, I will try to help if we can do something in that regard to make our presence felt.

The members can see that within the past year we have been a little more generous with respect to international relief: El Salvador, a hospital in Greece, assistance after the Mexico earthquake. That is not regularized. It tends to be ad hoc. Something comes along and we respond. The members can help me by creating better rules or more thoughtful ways to do this as to who qualifies or who does not qualify. As a compassionate have province, we can try to respond as best we can.

I am open to a debate on the matter of how members can be more involved. A number of us have private passions and private interests in this regard. It is like speaking out on the arms race. One can say it is not our concern and we should not do it here. Others will say that as part of humanity we all have a responsibility to stand up, particularly those of us who have a soapbox, that people have to listen to us; at least some do. We can stand up and put forward our voice for things we care about. When one throws a stone in the ocean, who knows where the ripples will finally end up? That does not absolve us of our moral responsibility in that regard. I am not at all uncomfortable with that. As the member suggested, if he wants to help me put more flesh on that, I will be very happy.

I ask my colleagues whether there are any issues, anything they would like to discuss in more detail or things they feel I have not responded to adequately. I will be happy to discuss more.

Mr. Guindon: Paris.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Paris? The member is quite right. Adrienne Clarkson has resigned; she is leaving, I believe, on March 1. No one else has been appointed in that regard, but we are going to maintain that as an Ontario House, not just as a trade operation. It is really in honour of the francophones in Ontario and our special relationship with France in that regard.

By the way, Brussels was neither here nor there, as the member knows. Brussels has been opened once, closed once and opened again, only in response to a federal government request to balance out the Quebec presence. The member is aware, I believe, that it did not do a hell of a lot one way or the other, and the reason we closed it down was that it was not doing very much. The politics in this country have changed. I am not saying it was not reasonable at the time; it may well have been. However, that was an international diplomatic matter with the European Community sitting there. We do not have in this country today, to the best of my knowledge, some of those regional tensions. There is a very different political situation in Quebec. We have constructive relationships between our two provinces in which we are struggling to find the things we have in common, not the things that divide us.

There are various ways to characterize relationships. You can find the things you have in common, or you can find the differences and shout at each another. That is what question period seems to be. Members will find the most minute thing they do not have in common, and the opposition will jump up and shout and will accentuate the difference. When I am dealing with the federal government, I try to minimize the differences. When I am dealing with Alberta or Quebec, I try to minimize the differences. It is not that there are no differences -- there always will be -- but it is the atmosphere in which we work them out that matters.

Something for which I take some pride is the fact that this country is working in a gentler way now than it was two or three years ago. That is for a lot of political reasons. There have been a lot of changes: changes in Quebec, changes in other places. There is an interest in Quebec now because it is perceived that there is a more tolerant attitude in Ontario about language rights. When we had that historic debate in this House on Bill 8, I was proud that all members of the House supported that bill. That would not have been the case two, three or four years ago. Those of us who have been here know that.

People outside our province look at those signals and at the kinds of things we care about. The fact that we all endorsed that unanimously, together, was a statement about a new coming of age of Ontario, at least in my view. It was viewed by the analysts in Quebec as a détente, if I can put it in that way. Our leadership in that regard -- and I am sure my friend the member for Cornwall, who will have a deep personal feeling for what I am talking about, will agree with me -- is part of our leadership responsibility as well.

It is the same when Alberta is having problems over energy prices. What do we do? Do we sit here and gloat and say, "Isn't that wonderful"? Do we just beat them up and look for ways to score local political points at someone else's expense, or do we look for ways to work with them? There are no simple or easy answers, but I remember the history of federal-provincial relationships in this province.

I do not hold anyone blameless. There was a very different federal government there that was adversarial in nature and would rather fight than solve problems. But there were also a lot of other parochial interests, and it was a tougher country to govern than it is now, even though I have profound differences with the Prime Minister and I frankly disagree completely with his handling of some of the issues one can name today: international banking centres, softwood lumber and so on. It is a comedy of errors, if members want to know the truth, but we try very hard in areas where we can to work together, and I will fight to do that whether he is there or whether someone else is there.

I do not see these as partisan matters. This country is too important to think about in partisan terms. My friend from Oshawa made a very good point when he said there are a number of ways in which members can participate in issues that are not particularly partisan, and we have to get the best wisdom and the best advice from all of them. I am open to suggestions. If members would like to pursue them more in our discussions over the next couple of days, I would be delighted.

17:10

Mr. McFadden: I have two or three areas I want to explore with the Premier this afternoon. First, I want to ask him one question with regard to the first vote; it relates to the minister's staff and deputy minister.

One area that has struck me as strange in Canada is that Canadians are forced to go to the US even to find compensation packages for executives of Canadian companies. Our stock market is very restrictive on disclosures as to shareholders.

I also find the statements of government ministries rather obscure as to what senior people in our government are paid. The Premier's salary and mine are well known. Can the Premier tell the House the salary range of the deputy minister of this ministry? My impression is that deputy ministers these days are being paid close to, if not more than, the Premier of Ontario. Can he give me the salary range for the deputy of this ministry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He is making $85,000. I think he is underpaid; he is a good man.

Mr. McFadden: Is that $85,100?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is $85,000. It is no big secret. How much does the member make?

Mr. McFadden: I think about $48,000 all told, something of that nature.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is public; there is no secret. Am I wrong? This is all recorded. It is all here. Does the member want to know about anyone else? It is all here.

Mr. McFadden: We had a problem over this in another estimates. Apparently there was an argument over whether it was --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are some ministries around here that are not as well run as this one; I will try to step into that question.

Mr. McFadden: If I can move on to a more substantive area --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: By the way, may I just say something on that? We have a very low salary range for our deputies in this government. It is a real problem and something we are looking at in the whole human resources planning area. We have been putting a lot of effort into human resources in this government; a lot of changes have come about and more are yet to come about.

Compared to the private sector, the vice-president of a university makes more than a deputy minister.

Mr. Pope: That is public sector, though.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What? Are the universities public sector? I do not know; it may be the member's idea of the public sector. There are an awful lot of other people making a lot more. It is a real problem, particularly given the nature of the responsibility. It is one of the things we have to upgrade very substantially around here.

Mr. McFadden: While I agree with the Premier that perhaps these senior staff are not as well compensated as they might be in the public sector, I would also argue that members of this House are ludicrously underpaid in view of the responsibilities they have; I include the Premier and the members of the cabinet in that, when you look at their areas of responsibility. I also include the various private members.

Right now a serious problem exists throughout the Ontario government in the area of compensation. While I do not think that is an appropriate matter of debate here in terms of compensation, I do think the rates of pay overall are distorted. I would certainly argue that there should be nobody in the public service of Ontario who is paid more than the Premier of Ontario. I would also argue that there should be nobody in the public service of Ontario within a ministry who is paid more than a minister, as a matter of principle.

I would suggest as well that the private members of this House are undercompensated in view of their responsibilities. I do not want to make this a matter of debate. It follows what the Premier said and I am not disputing it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member never had that view before. When did he change his mind on that? Is that his position now? It is funny how things change, that is all I can say.

Mr. Chairman: Order, the member for Eglinton has the floor.

Mr. McFadden: I will move on to the area of international affairs and the involvement of the ministry in that. With regard to our representation in Washington, as the Premier will know, the select committee on economic affairs recommended that Ontario establish an office in Washington.

I understand the concern the Premier has about locating an office in Washington as a result of the strong representations that I understand all the provinces are receiving from the federal government on establishing independent offices there that could be looked upon as competitive with the federal presence.

First, can the Premier tell the House what the government is now spending on representation in Washington? I know from time to time government ministries are retaining counsel and perhaps even public affairs consultants, lobbyists or whatever. Can the minister tell the House what the government is currently spending in Washington for government departments, commissions or any other government bodies to represent Ontario's interests?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry I do not have the answer. I will try to get that information for the honourable member and share it with him as quickly as I can.

How long will that take? We will have to circulate among the ministries. It is not only this ministry, obviously. For example, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and perhaps others have counsel there. We would have to circulate for all that information.

Mr. McFadden: In terms of our monitoring, what is happening in Washington? What role does the agent general's office in New York have in that area? In effect, do we have a situation where the New York office is trying to do what a Washington office would do, or are we totally relying on independent consultants, counsel and so on to monitor what is happening in Washington?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are in the throes of getting a new Agent General in New York at this time. Heretofore -- the deputy will correct me if I am wrong -- the agent general has not had any responsibilities in Washington. It is our view that he should have more responsibilities from a policy point of view in that regard.

One of the things we are looking at doing, if possible, is seconding one of our people into the Canadian embassy there. He would be our person with the embassy. Again, we are negotiating that. The question is whether they have to take one from each province. That would be 10 and they would have to treat all the provinces the same. Who would co-ordinate all these people? Who is the boss? You never heard a list of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo such as we are getting on this question, but the discussions are ongoing.

I am not interested in creating a diplomatic incident, if I can avoid it. To have official accreditation, the United States government has to agree, and it does so only on advice of the Canadian government. We are still negotiating.

I would appreciate any support the member can give me. If he would personally phone Joe Clark or Brian Mulroney, very close friends of his, and say it would be a good idea to have someone in Washington, recognizing his very high status in the Conservative Party of Ontario and nationally and his national reputation, I am sure they would agree with him. If I could use his name saying he supports me in that regard, I can assure him it would be very helpful. I would like to go with a common view on this issue. We are still working on it. Did I answer the member's question?

Mr. McFadden: More or less. I appreciate the minister's endorsement and kudos as to my roles in various areas, which probably overstate the case.

Mr. Foulds: It is the kiss of death. The member just lost Eglinton on the strength of that endorsement; maybe even the nomination.

Mr. McFadden: Yes. Will the minister clarify for me the current position of the Ontario government with regard to the trade talks that are going on in Washington? I know they are evolving. There are ongoing discussions and information exchanges between governments and so on.

One of the things I would comment on relates to something the member for Oshawa was saying. He has spoken to senators and congressmen and has never met a soul there who supported any type of trade agreement with Canada.

As a member of the select committee on economic affairs, I have met a number of congressmen and senators on two different occasions in Washington. I was also a member of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation that was there in September and I met with a number of senators and congressmen, including senators who were identified as protectionist. Every one of them I spoke to welcomed a trade agreement with Canada and hoped it would be achieved.

They had concerns about the specifics of it, but I was struck by the fact that even the most protectionist senators and congressmen had a very strong, positive view of Canada and were anxious that our relations with the United States did not deteriorate.

I do not know to whom the member for Oshawa has been speaking, but in the context of the meetings I have had there on trade policy on three different occasions with all-party groups and people from across Canada, that was not the reading I received.

17:20

With regard to Ontario's position on trade talks with Canada, can the Premier clarify for me whether the government of Ontario is supportive of a trade agreement being worked out with the US that would open up markets for Canadian providers of goods and services or whether the government's position is effectively one of simply negotiating under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and hoping these trade talks do not succeed?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have been there, as has my honourable friend. I am sure he is not a naïve fellow; he would not take this at face value. I talked to many senators and administration people and they all said, "We are all for free trade; we all love you guys," even though they had just walked out of the House after passing a protectionist bill against us.

I am sure my honourable friend can distinguish between rhetoric, friendly vibrations and substance. I am sure he has made a study of the situation. We have, and we know what the situation is in the US in that regard. They all tell us they love us. Why would they not? We tell them we love them. Once one gets past the friendly patter, one has to distinguish who really wants to do what to whom.

Even the senator from Montana, Max Baucus, was up here last week saying he was all in favour of a trade agreement. He voted against the fast-track process. He is the one who has hit the softwood. Sam Gibbons, with whom I have met, who brought in the famous Gibbons bill, walked into the room and said, "Boys, I am a free-trader." I said, "If he is a free-trader, I am a monkey." He just brought in the widest bill ever seen in the history of the Congress up to about a year ago. I am sure my honourable friend can distinguish fact from fiction and substance from rhetoric.

We are watching this thing very carefully, particularly in the wake of the elections in the US. We are expecting some sort of omnibus trade bill. We do not know what that will involve. However, that is not the question the member asked. The question was, what is our position on free trade? The member asks whether I am in favour of it.

The question is, am I favour of what? I am all in favour of any agreement that gives us better access into the US so that we can sell more goods. I would sign anything to do that.

Am I in favour of giving away the auto pact? No. Am I in favour of giving away an independent policy on exchange rates? No. Am I in favour of giving away our cultural sovereignty? The answer is no. Am I in favour of giving away our ability to create independent resource policy, i.e. softwood pricing or stumpage? No.

At some point we have to get off the clichés of a free trade agreement, whatever that means, or freer trade or liberalized trade, whatever that means. If the member tells me what it means, I will tell him whether I am in favour or not. That is about the level of the debate in this country at some levels. When we get into the substance of it, what are we in favour of? I want to sell more there, but am I prepared to give up our appliance industry? No. Am I prepared to give up our automotive industry? The answer is no.

That is why I say to my honourable friend I think the government of Ontario has been well prepared on this issue, has been watching it extremely carefully and has forced a level of substance into this debate that would not have been there otherwise. It was being held largely on a theoretical, theological level.

I am not an ideologue. I do not see it one way or the other. I do not make great speeches against it or great speeches for it. I make speeches for Canada and for protecting the things I think are important to us.

We are watching it very closely and we will see what comes up. If the Americans have some dispute-solving mechanism that will make our lives simpler, fine. However, if they want all this from us and do not get rid of countervail, what is the member's opinion of that? What if they do not get rid of their dumping? What is the member's opinion of that? Is he prepared to sign a free trade agreement and still let them come after our softwood with countervail?

My friend's question does not lend itself to a yes-or-no answer; it lends itself to a far higher degree of analysis than is attributed to it in this House or in other discussions. That is why this government has devoted an enormous amount of attention to this issue; it is so important to us.

I have personally been involved, as has staff of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and a variety of others. There is a planeload of people going down to Washington this Friday to talk to the embassy about the trade disputes going on in steel and to get the current update on softwood and a number of other issues. I am going to Washington, probably in January.

Some people think that if we can get a free trade agreement, we will solve all these problems, but they have to prove that to me. I can tell them to listen to the noises. I can show them things Clayton Yeutter, Bill Merlon and others who do not have that view have said.

At this point, nobody knows what they are talking about. What is the member's position? I have heard about six different positions out of his party. Is his party in favour of it? I do not know what its position is. Is it for or against sectoral free trade? Are the members of his party all in favour of Brian Mulroney or all against Brian Mulroney? Are they changing their minds on it? I can dredge up the quotes if the member wants to hear them.

This government has been vigilant in watching the situation. For some time, we have been pushing for a competitive national strategy. We are making major investments in education and technology and are widening our markets. We cannot be dependent on just one market. I do not deny for a minute the importance of the US market; 95 per cent of our exports go there. It is the largest trading relationship in the world and will continue to be, but we need alternatives as well. We are working on them as a government.

I am willing to discuss this more if my honourable friend would like to. It is one of my favourite subjects.

Mr. McFadden: As the Premier has mentioned, this is a complex matter. As far as my position or the party's position is concerned, I would say the report of the select committee on economic affairs covered the topic well. That report was agreed to by both the Liberal and Conservative members of the committee. Therefore, I assume the committee report quite fairly reflects the view of the Liberal Party and our party on it; otherwise, we would not have voted on that. That is to start with.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) say he is not in favour of it; he is in favour of sectoral free trade.

Mr. McFadden: No, that is not what he said, in fairness.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can show the member the press quotes. I can show where he jumped up and embraced Brian Mulroney and said, "Poor Peterson wants to put a protectionist wall across the country." If the member tells me that is the view of his party, I accept that.

Mr. Martel: Who wants consistency anyway?

Mr. McFadden: In parliamentary language I know I cannot say the Premier is misleading, so I will say he is economical with the truth on that matter, referring to what our leader said.

Mr. Martel: You borrowed my line.

Mr. Mancini: You cannot say that either.

Mr. Chairman: Will you please withdraw that?

Mr. McFadden: I would say that is not an accurate reflection of the view of my party leader.

Mr. Foulds: Nobody knows the view of your party leader on anything.

Mr. McFadden: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we keep the yapping down from the members in the New Democratic Party. They can have their chance in a little while.

Mr. Pope: That is their contribution.

Mr. McFadden: I know that is their contribution.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Please let the member who has the floor be heard.

Mr. McFadden: With regard to the trade talks, the Premier has made the point that they are complicated. He does not know what they are about and what is going to come of them. Our position has been definite. The Premier mentioned all the various areas we do not want to give up on. I do not know of any party in this House that is going to give up on cultural sovereignty. No one is proposing to give up on the auto pact, compromise it or destroy it. To suggest we are in favour of any of those points is strictly a straw man.

Basically, we have said that in our relationship with the US today we have some major areas where free trade now exists; softwood lumber is one and general lumber is another. We have had that for decades. Effectively, there has been a free flow of goods in those areas. We have had a free flow of goods in terms of duty-free access for various products.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: So you like what is happening in the softwood deal.

Mr. McFadden: As the Premier well knows, the intervention of countervail and this current action are actually a retrograde step. We are moving away from free trade in that product into a protectionist regime. That is causing us to lose jobs in Ontario.

If the various countervail actions now in existence or the various trade restriction bills now in Congress go ahead, can the Premier give the House figures on how many jobs will be lost in Ontario? How many jobs will be lost if the trade acts, as proposed, go through Congress? Does the Premier have those figures? Does he have figures on the job loss we could suffer if the current countervail actions were to go ahead? Does the government have any figures on the job loss that could be occasioned in this province?

17:30

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are hundreds of bills. If the honourable member will tell me which ones he is talking about, I can perhaps respond.

Mr. McFadden: The Premier will know that last year Congress passed an omnibus trade bill that affected the whole range of American trading relations with countries around the world. That was passed. It is now in conference and so on between the Senate and the House. It has not gone yet to the President. It is a bill that is probably about an inch thick. I assume the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs are aware of that trade act. I assume there surely has been some review of the effect this trade act would have on Ontario jobs.

The omnibus bill has been before Congress now for about six months. When I was there in September, I received a copy of the bill. Can the Premier provide the House any information on the job loss that could be incurred if just the omnibus trade act were to pass?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is not the bill that one is going to have to contend with. There are something like 300 of them, or there were. I gather a number of them died on the order paper and others will be coming up. The question is which one will gain momentum, particularly in the new round of people there. We are looking for realistic possibilities and trying to fight those appropriately, but I do not think my honourable friend's question is meaningful. It is not helpful in this discussion at all.

That being said, there are several hundred layoffs as a result of the softwood issue. We do take it very seriously and we see it as an unfortunate precedent. We also see a number of other endangered areas, such as steel, uranium, petroleum, zinc and lead. Who knows what is next and what we have created?

What we believe the federal government has created is an atmosphere whereby it is prepared to roll over on these matters. That is why we should have fought it. It is tough medicine, but we should have fought it. Again, I ask for the member's help in persuading the federal government to change its view of the situation.

Mr. Chairman: Can we rotate a bit? This is on the same subject and you can come back again.

Mr. Wildman: I would like to raise some matters in regard to the same issue, the question of trade with the US. The position of our party is quite clear. We are in favour of sectoral agreements along the lines of the auto pact that would protect our trade and our markets and make it possible for us to have freer trade between our nations, not just sectoral trade agreements with the US but agreements with other nations as well.

I am concerned about the fact that, as the Premier indicated, even those members of the American Congress who have indicated that they are in favour of freer trade with Canada have made it quite clear, as has Mr. Yeutter, the negotiator for the US, there is no way that countervail would ever be removed. If they take that position, then it seems very unwise to me and to those of us in this party that we should agree to give away whatever it is necessary to give away in order to have freer trade or a free trade agreement with the US if the Americans maintain their right to continue to take countervail action when they feel any of their industries are endangered by what might be just fair competition or differences in exchange rates.

The situation we have in softwood lumber is very apropos. Our share of the US market has gone up in the past couple of years largely because of the exchange rates and the decline of the Canadian dollar in relation to the American dollar. It does not have anything to do with differences in the charges that the American industry has to pay for lumber as opposed to our stumpage fees in this country or subsidies of some sort or another. It is a difference in exchange rates and the fact that the American dollar is too high in relation to other currencies and to Canadian currency in particular. They take action against us in response to a situation that has nothing or very little to do with government charges for crown timber. We in this party are very much in favour of a disputes-resolving mechanism of some sort if it can be worked out between our two nations. With that preamble, I will ask some specific questions of the Premier.

Can the Premier indicate his understanding of the process right now in Washington with regard to softwood lumber? The American industry has made it clear that it does not agree with the proposed agreement put forward by the Canadian federal government with the support of British Columbia and some other provinces. It does not accept that 15 per cent is adequate. It is talking about 20 per cent or 25 per cent. That is very dangerous because if they win, it means the American government will say it has the right to set Canadian, Ontarian and British Columbian stumpage fees, which is complete interference with our sovereignty.

I would like to know exactly what the position of the Ontario government is. The Premier has indicated that counsel has been hired, that he has the right of access to all documents and information and that he can file written submissions. I would like to know what other actions the government of Ontario intends to take on our behalf, particularly on behalf of the industry and the jobs in northern Ontario, and what deadlines we have to meet.

With regard to the question of trade, I am very concerned about some of the moves that have been taken recently in the US by the American steel companies, with the possibility there will be action against Canadian steel. We have seen attempts in the past to require stamping of Canadian and other foreign tube and pipe, which is basically a nontariff barrier. There may be attempts to put limits on Canadian steel exports to the US. I understand the Canadian industry has indicated it is prepared to consider further voluntary limitations. However, the share of the American market by Canadian steel companies has continued to rise and this is going to raise serious questions in the US. The softwood process has encouraged a number of protectionist moves in many areas. Obviously, in the area I come from I am concerned about steel.

I would like the Premier to answer the questions I have raised about our position and what he sees for the immediate future with regard to softwood and the countervail action, and what he understands about the situation of the steel industry and steel imports. What, if anything, does this government intend to do to try to avert a similar situation with steel?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member makes a number of very thoughtful points. One of the problems is that the whole question of subsidies is very much in the eye of the beholder. In 1983, a stumpage policy was not seen to be a subsidy; today it is.

What happens if exchange rates, which the member talked about, are seen to be a subsidy in the next round? What we are seeing is a politically supercharged atmosphere widening the definition of "subsidy." Clayton Yeutter and others have said they are not going to get rid of countervail or antidumping mechanisms. If there is some kind of dispute-solving mechanism as part of a trade agreement if one comes along, what will it be? How will it be apportioned? How do we handle a lot of the other big issues too, such as adjustment on this side and over what period?

There is the question of national treatment. Do we treat each country's industry the same as any other country's industry? There is the question of regional disparity programs. I have shared with my colleagues a list of 200 or 300 acts in this province, provincial and federal, current legislation that could be deemed to provide subsidies, so it is a very subjective atmosphere.

17:40

With respect to the approach we would have taken on softwood, there has been a preliminary finding of subsidy. That needs a final finding of subsidy at the end of the year. It is a four-part process. One then has to go to preliminary and final determination of injury. We believe it should have been fought on that basis. We should have fought it legally and diplomatically in that time frame. Time is now awasting, because of the intervening events that I will get to in a minute.

We would have fought it through there. We would have asked for an accelerated review after January 1, which would have allowed a new application. We would have fought it in the courts and at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and not given up anything. We would not have given up our rights. The other thing is that there is not just the legal precedent but the diplomatic precedent. If we get pushed around, we have to push back. It looks as though we are compromising everything. I think it was mishandled.

This has all been superseded by action of the federal government, supported principally by British Columbia but also to some extent by Alberta and Quebec. The other provinces have varying degrees of worries and are a lot more nervous today than they were a month ago. At the risk of looking backwards, I recall that a number of us in the Ontario delegation were telling them what was going to happen. They did not take our word for it at the time. There was an awful lot of pressure to come up with some heroic gesture that would save the situation. Members will recall that better than I do. I was there, and there was an immense amount of pressure in the situation.

Miss Carney told the first ministers at that meeting that she had a deal with Baldrige, a 15 per cent termination agreement. It started to become unstuck the next day and it has been unstuck ever since. I am told there have been offers and counter-offers back and forth across the borders, carried by the deputy minister and others in the US. There is no guarantee that US industry will come on side because countervail is industry to industry, not government to government, so the interest of government is in speaking for the industry.

I am told the federal government is likely to put a formal offer in front of the US federal government tomorrow or the next day to see whether the US government can buy it and sell it to its own industry. There have already been formal offers from the US government to our government, and they have been rejected. They were twice as much as they originally anticipated, doubling up, not 15 per cent but 30 per cent.

We are in a bit of a blind alley on this matter. We are being told what is happening after the fact. We are not being asked our advice on how to negotiate. We do not have the power to do it provincially. If we had the power to do that, we could take other actions, but we do not. We are out of the play. We have hired counsel and filed in the US court with respect to the verification process; in other words, that gives us legal right to all the documents. We have already filed reams of documents, and even in the preliminary hearing, on November 15 or whenever it was, in spite of what was read in this House, Ontario was the one jurisdiction seen to have provided the information required in the US.

Ontario's stumpage was about three times what it was in British Columbia. We got caught up accidentally in that but we were not the main culprits in the whole play. To the best of my knowledge, that is where the situation is now. Miss Carney is going to negotiate this, and I cannot predict at all what will happen on this side or on that side, or whether the provinces will go for it. This export tax and how it is going to be rebated and how it is going to work -- honestly, none of us knows. They do not know, and if they knew, they would tell us. Am I right? I am right. That is the best of my knowledge at the moment.

The steel industries are different, as members know. Steel is almost in a negotiated situation. The big steel companies have been reasonably good at holding their exports down on a voluntary basis. I believe the figure is 2.4 per cent of the US market. My figures may be wrong. If I am wrong, I will get back to the members on it. What they are trying to do is voluntarily to hold them, and because of the strong steel lobby led by John Heinz in the US, they figure that if they can hold the exports to, I believe, about 2.4 per cent of the US market, they will avoid retaliatory action or a major bill.

Last month and the month before, figures were up to about 4.5 per cent. Because it is not a legal situation, it appears some of the smaller steel exporters were sneaking around the rules or around the voluntary agreement that had been reached among some, and again it is not legally enforcible, and that is putting more pressure on the system. Some of the responsible leaders in the steel industry are very worried that is going to invite more retaliation, particularly in a more formal way, of some type or other.

It is one of those situations that has been in a sort of state of suspended animation, with constant negotiation up and down for the past couple of years. Because of the very strong steel lobby in the US, we are hoping it will not result in specific legislation, but again the situation is being managed day by day. There is another meeting today that I am aware of, and I hope there will be good results from that one. I cannot promise the member how the future will unfold in that regard.

Mr. Pope: First, with respect to the Brussels office, irrespective of the opinion of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on personnel and the effectiveness of the office, it is a mistake to close it.

It was not opened just because of the Quebec presence in Brussels, in the European Community. It was opened because a number of provincial offices had been opened with respect to lumber imports into the European Community and because of the desire of both British Columbia and Quebec to explore new trade opportunities there. I specifically refer the Premier to the massive advertising campaign of the government of British Columbia, which was started in 1982 and has continued to date. It has resulted in access of British Columbia products to the European Community when it is being denied to Ontario.

The same goes with respect to the Quebec office. There was an agreement among the federal government of the day, Quebec and the industry of Quebec which provided for a three-way funding for a Quebec office in Brussels -- one third federal, one third provincial and one third industry. Any objective analysis of what was going on in Brussels and the European Community was that Quebec was getting access; it was getting a favourable hearing for its products in the European Community.

In Belgium and northern France, I visited the construction programs that were using entirely prefabricated homes, products of British Columbia. They were getting access and Ontario's products were not.

Ontario's products were not getting access for a variety of reasons. The only products from Ontario that were getting access were waferboard products. It was a long battle of more than two years to get waferboard products into the European market. However, lumber was not getting access because of a deliberate decision by the European Community, at the request of France, that related to a major storm in the fall of 1982 in the French timber-producing areas, which resulted in a surplus of fallen timber that had to be harvested and, therefore, a surplus of lumber in the European market.

To protect the price for the French producers, they made a conscious decision to keep some of the North American products out. That was combined with the artificial devaluation of the Swedish krona, which allowed more economic access in the European market in spite of the fact it was not quite a member of the European Community. All these factors meant that Ontario, particularly for its lumber products, was not getting access into the European market when the opportunity existed with a bit of a push.

17:50

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Then why did you close it the first time?

Mr. Pope: Listen, when I went there as Minister of Natural Resources it was a major trade opportunity area that we had to explore. There were contacts that were required between the Ontario government and the European Community. There were contacts that had to be made.

The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) can shake his head. I happen to have been there at the time. I met with the traders. I met with the people who operated the port in Antwerp. I met with the trading community in Brussels, whose members had some access to the European Community. There was the availability -- and certainly the lumber producers of Ontario felt it -- of a European market that was not being taken up by Ontario producers. There had to be some leadership from the Ontario government to make it happen. I believe that opportunity still exists.

A similar case can be made for the access of metals into the European Community. One of the reasons Inco has its facility in Britain is to try to get access for its company products into the European Community. That is a long-standing debate that has gone on in Europe. The dumping of metal products by the Soviets, indirectly through the Eastern European countries, had a dramatic impact on the price of nickel, which affects Canadian producers so much, and on the price of gold and the access of gold to the European Community, which affect Ontario so much. All these issues are current issues still. There still is an opportunity there, and Brussels is the key point for economic access to the European Community.

I am saying his decision is neither right nor wrong. I am saying there are trade implications to that decision that have to be made consciously by this government. I still think there are trade opportunities that we are neglecting. I am not saying we solved all those impediments to access by Ontario companies to the market. I am not saying that at all. If we had solved those problems, we would not have needed the Brussels office.

We did have those impediments. We did have decisions being taken by the European Community for internal domestic reasons, for trade-off reasons within the European Community, for reasons of devaluation, for reasons of the need of the Soviet bloc to get currency of any kind to help its balance of trade problems. All these issues are circulating through the European Community and do have an impact on trade.

It still has potential for Ontario producers and I think it still should be pursued through every available avenue by our Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or, if the Premier wishes now to assign that responsibility, by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

I want to talk about the lumber issue as well vis-à-vis Washington. I have to say, with the greatest of respect, the Premier does not know what happened in 1982, 1983 and 1984 on the lumber issue. I have my own notes of the meetings that took place at the time. I never said I singlehandedly rescued the situation. Let him point out one place in Hansard where I, said that. Bernard Landry from Quebec never said he singlehandedly rescued the Quebec industry. Tom Waterland from British Columbia did not say he singlehandedly rescued the British Columbia industry; not at all.

We got involved for two reasons. First of all, the industry asked for our assistance. Second, we felt it would have a fundamental impact on Ontario's policies and therefore Ontario had to have a presence, because unlike the American system, there is no federal control of the resource sector. There is no great control through the interstate commerce jurisdiction at the federal level as in the US. It is an entirely different system.

One of the points we emphasized with Malcolm Baldrige, the commerce secretary, when the three provincial ministers met with him, along with the Canadian ambassador, the Canadian embassy trade officials and industry representatives, was that we had a different system in this country. Resources were, under the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the provinces; therefore, when policies from another country had an impact on resource policies, we had the right to be heard. We were there with the support of the federal government and our Canadian ambassador to tell Commerce Secretary Baldrige this was an important matter that would impact on provincial jurisdictions, on our provincial lumber industries and resource products industries. Therefore, we wanted him to know what our unanimous point of view was in Canada.

The fact of the matter was that in 1982 a group of provincial politicians went to meet the International Trade Commission staff to understand what the provincial role would be in the hearings, to understand what rights we had to appear, to get involved in the process and to understand the very complicated, quasi-judicial administrative process. We took the time to do that, to understand the issues.

The Premier, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) did not know about those meetings in 1982. They thought I went down twice in 1983, met with Malcolm Baldrige one time and that was the end of it.

They do not know about the visits from Waddell, Landry and myself. We went down and met with Senator Cohen of Maine, who was so upset by the shakes and shingles industry in Quebec that he was cosponsoring Senator Packwood's resolutions in the Senate vis-à-vis softwood lumber. We had to talk to Senator Cohen and his staff about his problems with the impact of subsidies in Quebec on the shakes and singles industry in his home state.

There were the meetings with Packwood's staff about his problems with British Columbia, which are historical; problems for more than 30 years. There are the problems of the Pacific Northwest vis-à-vis the British Columbia producers and the meetings we had with other senators and congressman about these issues.

It was not a one- or two-shot deal. It was comprehensive work for a long time to understand the politics of the situation in Washington, to try to address the concerns other politicians would have and to appear in front of Malcolm Baldrige, the Secretary of Commerce, in a formal recorded session to tell him that the provinces were opposed unanimously to what was happening with countervail in 1983 and to demand the right to be heard because it was a provincial matter, that the primary effect of the decision on countervail in 1983 would be on provincial policies including stumpage, crown dues and other industrial subsidies.

I understand that the Premier went down in October 1985 and had a private meeting with some trade officials for about an hour and a half on the morning he was there, but that there was no consistent, coherent approach on both the political and administrative levels in Washington. That is from all the reports we have.

There was no consistent, coherent approach by any of the provinces. Everyone assumed that it was all over, that we had won in 1983 and that there would not be a problem this time around. The fact of the matter is that the whole scene had changed, the politics had changed, and there was a need for the province to be there from the very beginning, not once the preliminary determination was being made and not on the eve of it. Ontario should have been there from the very beginning when the first application was made.

I understand Adam Zimmerman said, "We can do it alone." They spent millions of dollars. The industry fought this case directly and the province said, "Okay, we will let the industry fight it directly." That was the wrong decision. The province should have been in on it from the very beginning. It should have been exercising its political influence and it should have been supporting the industrial position.

In the events of the fall of 1986, it is not as clear cut as the Premier would want it to be that Ottawa was acting on its own and that he was not advised or informed. It is not clear at all. Carney made the original offer of eight to 10 per cent on October 1; it was reported in the October 1 newspapers in any event. That was when the original offer was made. Ontario never objected at the time. It never publicly said, "We will not go along with any proposal to settle the matter." The Premier was not quoted in the newspapers, as he often has been on trade issues over the past 18 months. He was not quoted on this issue. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was not quoted. Ontario was absolutely silent for three weeks; nothing was said.

Pat Carney said she was speaking on behalf of the nation, the provinces and the industry: eight to 10 per cent and Ontario was quiet. In the meantime the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was doing his studies to show that 500 to 1,000 jobs would be lost because of the eight to 10 per cent offer. That is the way it came out.

I remind the Premier that from the very opening of Parliament on October 13 we started raising our concerns about what was going to happen on the lumber issue, about the imminent preliminary determination or decision that was coming and what its impact would be. Then the announcement came of a preliminary decision. The leader of the third party has said on a number of occasions that the Minister of Natural Resources stood up and said that 15 per cent was not a bad result. In the meantime, 500 to 1,000 jobs are going to be lost even from eight to 10 per cent, and the Minister of Natural Resources says it is not a bad result.

He did not start to dissociate himself publicly from Pat Carney and the federal government until the weekend after the announcement of the preliminary determination. It was October 21 when he told the media outside the Legislature that he had been snookered by Ottawa in its original eight to 10 per cent offer. That is the only time. When the heat started to be turned on him in the Legislature by the opposition parties, all of a sudden he distanced himself. Then, having sat there for three weeks and allowed the eight to 10 per cent offer to float, he started to distance himself and then said he was going to fight it to the end.

What happened? He ended up going to Vancouver to try to persuade the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the other provinces to adopt Ontario's new-found strategy. He was turned down cold. Not even Robert Bourassa of Quebec supported his position. He was isolated. Now we hear from this government over the past week that he is not even involved in the negotiations in Washington, nor has he had any discussions on the export tax and its implications in this province. In the meantime, workers are losing their jobs.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes, we are.

Mr. Pope: Is the minister saying he is? Now he is. He is involved in Washington now, is he?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I have mentioned on several occasions, we have put in briefs and supplied information.

Mr. Pope: The minister has never said before in this House that he was involved in the negotiations with the federal government in Washington. We have just found out something brand new about the policies of this government.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I draw your attention to the clock.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Peterson, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

15 décembre 1986